0.  5.  4^ 


BX  7255  .B77  W54  1818 

A  review  of  ecclesiastical 
proceedings  in  the 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2009  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tlieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/reviewofecclesiaOOcong 


REVIEW^,,      '  "^ 

OF 

ECCLESIASTICAL  PROCEEDINGS 

IN    THE 

Congregational  Church  and  Society 
in  Brooklyn^  (Conn.) 

AND  PARTICULARLY  OF  THE 

PROCEEDINGS  AND  RESULT  OF  THE  CONSO^ 
CIATION  OF  WINDHAM  COUNTY, 

IK  FEBRUARY^  1817, 


A  CHARGE  OF  HERESY  AGAINST  THE  JUNIOR  PASTOR 
OF  SAID  CHURCH  AND  SOCIETY. 


BY  LUTHER  WILLSON,  A.  M. 

THEIR    LATE    PASTOR. 


V  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged  :  for  with  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall 
be  judged ;  and  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again." 

"  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 

*'  Wisdom  from  above  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  en- 
treated ;  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits ;  without  partiality,  and  without  hy- 
pocrisy." 


WORCESTER : 
PRI^'TED   BY    WILLIAM    MANNING. ^.TULY,    1818. 


A  REVIEW,  &c. 


[The  following  documents,  with  remarks,  will  afford,  it  is  believed, 
satisfactory  evidence  that  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  the  junior  pastor 
of  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  who  had  altered  his  views  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Trinity,  and  was  accused  of  heresy  before  the  Consocia- 
tion of  Windham  County,  was  ever  solicitous,  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  difficulty  occasioned  by  his  change  of  sentiments  until  the 
time  of  his  dismission,  to  continue  with  the  church  and  society  m 
Brooklyn  in  peace,  or  to  leave  them  peaceable  and  united  among 
themselves,  and  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  principles  and  char- 
acter of  a  Christian  minister.] 


Record  of  the  Church. 

In  consequence  of  uneasiness  and  disaffection  ia 
the  church  and  among  the  people  on  account  of  erroneoue 
opinions  supposed  to  be  entertained  by  Mr.  Willson,  their 
junior  pastor, — Dr.  Whitney,  their  senior  pastor,  and  some 
members  of  the  church,  thought  it  advisable  that  there 
should  be  a  church-meeting  appointed  to  converse  u^ith 
Mr.  Willson  on  the  subject,  and  with  his  approbation  and 
consent.     Accordingly  a  meeting  vi^as  appointed  on  the 
8th  day  of  February,  1816,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.  at  the 
meeting-house.     The  church  accordingly  met  on  said  8th 
day  of  February,  at  said  place,  for  the  purpose  of  inquiring 
as  to  a  change  or  supposed  change  in  the  opinions  of  Mr. 
Willson.     Considerable  conversation   took  place  on  the 
subject,  but  no  votes  passed ;  and  the  meeting  was  ad- 
journed to  the  16th  of  the  instant  month,  at  3  o'clock, 
P.  M.  in  the  meeting-house. 

"  February  16th — The  church  met  at  time  and  place 
according  to  adjournment.     After  opening  with  prayer. 


4 

John  Parish,  Esq.  was  chosen  Moderator,*  and  Capt.  Mo- 
ses Clark,  Scribe.  The  church  then  requested  Mr.  Will- 
son  to  make  a  statement  of  his  views  with  respect  to  the 
divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  accordingly  de- 
clared it  as  '  his  prevailing  opinion,  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  not,  in  his  own  nature  as  a  di- 
vine person,  equal  and  eten.id  with  the  Father,  the  su- 
preme, self- existent  God.'  Upon  which  declaration  of 
Mr.  Willson,  the  church  immediately  passed  the  following 
vote,  viz.  '  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  an  essential  or 
fundamental  doctrine' — thirteen  in  the  affirmative,  five  in 
the  negative,  and  five  neutral." 

Mr.  W.  after  expressing  his  opinion  in  the  terms  thus 
recorded,  declared  himself  ready  to  give  his  reasons  for 
the  change  that  had  taken  place  in  his  views  upon  the  Di- 
vinity of  Christ,  at  that  time,  or  at  any  time  when  the 
church  should  be  disposed  to  hear  them.  The  church 
did  not,  however,  then^  nor  have  they  shice^  discovered  any 
desire  to  become  acquainted  with  the  process  of  mind,  or 
the  reasons,  which  produced  a  change  in  his  opinion. 

After  the  vote  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which 
passed  almost  immediately  upon  its  beine  proposed  to  the 
church,  at  the  urgent  motion  of  two  of  its  members,  and 
apparently  with  a  particular  design  to  avoid  an  explanation 
of  their  views  of  this  doctrine,  or  of  the  object  and  appli- 
cation of  the  vote  ;  Mr.  W.  requested  those  who  joined  in 
it,  to  inform  him  in  what  sense  they  viewed  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  to  be  essential,  or  fundamental ;  whether 
they  intended  to  be  understood  as  declaring,  by  that  act, 
that  they  considered  a  belief  in  this  doctrine  essential  to 
salvation,  or  to  Christian  fellowship.  Mr.  W.  observed, 
that  he  deemed  it  a  matter  of  particular,  practical  impor- 
tance to  a  pastor,  whose  duty  it  was  to  propose  individuals 
for  admission  to  Christian  privileges,  to  ascertain  the  sense 
of  the  church,  whether  they  considered  such  a  belief  cs- 

*  Dr.  Whitney,  the  senior  pastor,  on  account  of  the  infirmities  of  age,  was  not  able 
to  be  from  his  own  house  a*,  thai  season,  to  preside  at  the  rtjeeting.  Mr.  W.  the  ju- 
nior pastor,  expecting  his  change  ot  sentiments  to  be  the  paiticular  subject  of  iuquiry 
and  investigation,  and  apprehending  ihc  necessity  of  considerable  conversation  and 
diicussion  on  his  part,  which  might  not  be  prudent  for  him  to  allow  himself  in  the 
capacity  of  a  Moderator,  suggested  to  the  church  the  propriety  of  appointing  one  of 
their  number  to  preside  at  the  meeting,  who  would  probably  be  considered  more  dis- 
interested and  impartial.  Accor4ingly  Mf.  Parish,  a  member  of  the  cbuich,  wa» 
choien  iMode.-ator, 


sential  to  Christian  fellowship  ;  stating,  that  if  they  consid= 
ered  it  thus  essential,  their  views  were  very  different  from 
what  he  had  always  supposed ;  and  that  it  would  be  for 
his  happiness  and  theirs,  that  his  pastoral  relation  to  them 
be  dissolved.  Obtaining  no  answer  to  his  inquiries  as  to 
the  meaning  and  application  of  the  vote,  and  anxious  to 
know  their  feelings  with  respect  to  liim  as  their  pastor,  he 
urged  them  to  express  their  minds,  (after  being  made  ac- 
quainted with  the  change  that  had  taken  place  in  his  views 
upon  a  doctrine  which  they  then  declared  fundamental,) 
whether  they  were  satisfied  or  dissatisfied  with  him  as 
their  minister.  I'he  church  being  unwilling  to  act  in  the 
case,  though  repeatedly  and  earnestly  solicited,  he  request- 
ed those  that  were  in  the  vote  to  call  upon  him,  that  he 
might  have  opportunity  to  converse  with  them,  and  ascer- 
tain Uieir  sense  of  the  vote,  and  also  their  views  with  re- 
spect to  him  as  their  pastor.  Several  of  them  called,  a- 
greeably  to  his  request ;  while  others,  (about  half  the  num- 
ber that  were  in  the  vote,)  and  some,  indeed,  aged  and  lead- 
ing members  of  the  church,*  never  visited  him,  nor  sought 
an  opportunity  to  converse  with  him  upon  the  subjcct.f 

It  is  here  proper  to  remark,  that  two  members  who  join- 
ed in  the  vote,  being  unacquainted  with  the  views  of  those 
that  moved  it,  and  not  sufficiently  considering  its  obvious 
import,  or  the  construction  to  which  it  was  liable  among 
those  that  were  conversant  with  ecclesiastical  affairs,  had 
occasion,  soon  after,  very  much  to  regret  their  agency  in 
giving  sanction  to  such  a  record  in  the  church.  Upon  re- 
flection, they  saw,  that  without  their  concurrence  the  vote 
would  not  have  passed ;  that  they  had  been  instrumental 
in  bringing  it  into  the  church,  though  unapprehensive,  at 
the  time,  of  the  use  that  might  be  made  of  it,  and  of  the 
consequences  that  might  result  from  it.  Their  only  view, 
when  they  acted,  was  to  declare  their  firm  belief  in  the 
Trinity  as  a  doctrine  of  revelation  ;  as  one,  among  odiers 

•  Capt.  Daniel  Tyler  and  Deacon  Joseph  Scarborough,  Whether  these  gentlemen 
considered  the  request  of  dieir  pastor  unreasonable,  and  undeserving  their  attention  ; 
or  were  disinclined  to  a  candid  and  full  discussion  of  the  subject  under  consideration; 
or  were  conscious,  from  their  own  feelings,  of  personal  animos.*.es  that  rendered  them 
averse  to  such  an  interview  ;  or  were  influenced  by  other  motives,  is  best  known  to 
themselves. 

+  It  appeared  from  conversation  with  those  that  called  upon  Mr.  W.  that  some  in- 
tended, by  their  act,  no  nnore  than  a  declaration  of  their  settled  belief  in  the  Trinity  : 
Oiiiers  intended  by  it  a  publick  disapprobation  of  Mr.  W.'s  sentiments  :  Not  one,  that 
I  itcolkft,  expressed  ao  opinion  that  a  belief  in  the  Tiioity  wa»  essential  to  communion. 


in  connexion,  that  was  essential  to  make  up  the  Christian 
system. 

From  conversation  with  Mr,  W.  the  junior  pastor,  they 
were  led  to  suppose  (what  afterwards  proved  true)  that  the 
construction  put  upon  the  vote  declaring  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  to  be  fundamental,  by  those  who  claim  to  be 
of  the  orthodox  faith,  would  require  a  publick  assent  to  it, 
as  necessary  to  Christian  fellowship.     With  these  views, 
and  with  serious  concern  for  the  evils  that  might  arise 
from  this  act  of  the  church,  in  which  they  concurred,  they 
were  anxious  that  a  meeting  should  be  appointed,  to  see  if 
the  church  would  not  annul  their  vote  upon  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  or  so  explain  and  modify  it  as  not  to  re- 
quire an  assent  to  it  as  an  indispensable  qualification  for 
Christian  communion.     Accordingly  a  petition  was  pre- 
pared and  signed  by  them  and  others,  that  concurred  in 
the  same  act,  for  the  purpose  of  rescinding  the  vote,  or 
procuring  such  an  explanation  as  should  allow  those  who 
might  disbelieve  the  Trinity,  the  common  rights  and  priv- 
ileges of  members  of  the  church.     One  of  the  individuals 
that  signed  the  petition  called  upon  the  Rev.  Dr.  Whitney, 
the  senior  pastor,  to  converse  with  him,  and  obtain  his  opin- 
ion of  the  meaning  of  the  vote.     Dr.  W.  in  conversation 
with  him,  satisfied  his  mind  that  the  vote  upon  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  would  not  be  so  construed  and  applied  by  the 
church  as  to  preventthose  from  enjoying  Christian  privileges 
who  could  not  acknowledge  the  truth  of  this  doctrine.  From 
this  interview  with  Dr«  W.  he  was  induced  to  believe,  that 
a  difference  of  opinion  upon  this  subject  would  by  no 
means  be  considered  by  the  church  as  interrupting  the 
chanty  and  communion  of  its  members.     In  consequence 
of  this  conversation,  and  relying  upon  tlie  opinion  of  Dr. 
W.  as  to  the  sense  and  construction  of  the  vote,  the  indi- 
viduals who  had  prepared  the  petition*  proceeded  no  far- 

•  The  numbtr  that  signed  the  petition  wai  four— all  of  them  in  the  vote  that  de- 
clared the  docirine  of  the  Trinity *to  be  fundamental,  The  petition  would  have  gone 
forward  to  the  church,  and  probably  with  the  addition  of  more  names  that  concurred 
in  the  vote,  had  it  not  been  prevented  by  the  conversation  and  opinion  of  the  lenior 
pastor.  Deducting  the  four  that  aigned  the  petition,  and  concurred  in  the  vote  upon 
the  Trinity,  from  ihirleen,  the  whole  number,  leaves,  at  most,  but  nine  in  favour  of  a 
belief  in  the  Trinity  as  necessary  to  communion.  These  four  added  to  the  ten,  that 
did  not  concur  in  the  vote,  gives,  at  least,  fourteen  to  nine,  who  did  not  consider  a 
belief  in  the  Trinity  essential  to  communion.  Thus  the  sense  of  a  majority  of  the 
«huTch  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  at  the  time  the  vote  was  passed,  as  it  is  col- 
lected from  circumstances,  and  by  a  just  calculation,  was  evidently  in  favour  of  e 
liberal  communion.  But  still,  I  think,  the  terms  of  the  vote  are  fairly  interpreted  in 
e  diifcreut  and  restricted  lense. 


ther  in  pursuance  of  their  object.  But,  however  much  to 
be  regretted^  Dr.  W.  and  other  members  of  the  church,, 
who  had  hitherto  been  hberal  in  their  opinions  and  con- 
duct, have  since  thought  it  necessary  to  practise  upon  a 
different  principle. 

Church  Record. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  congregational  church  in  Brook- 
lyn, warned  by  the  junior  pastor  of  said  church  on  the 
24th  of  March,  and  holden  on  the  25th,  1816,  Deacon 
Roger  W.  Williams  was  chosen  Moderator,  and  David 
Prince,  Clerk.  Foted,  that  this  meeting  be  adjourned  to 
Friday  next,  at  1  o'clock,  P.  M.  the  29th  day  of  March 
instant." 

There  is  an  important  omission  in  this  record;  For 
what  reason,  or  how  it  came,  I  am  unable  to  say. 

Dr.  W.  the  senior  pastor,  has  uniformly  kept  the  book 
of  records.  Wlien  he  was  unable  to  attend  the  meetings, 
the  votes  and  proceedings  of  the  church  were  transmitted 
to  him.  When  he  attended,  he  has  made  the  record  ac- 
cording to  his  own  recollection  and  judgment.  In  record- 
ing, he  has  sometimes  omitted,  and  sometimes  altered,  ei- 
ther unintentionally  and  by  accident,  or  because  he  thought 
best.  Had  the  omissions  and  alterations  been  made  only 
and  apparently  with,  a  view  to  exhibit  the  records  with 
greater  accuracy  and  precision,  and  in  a  more  perfect 
form,  without  materially  affecting  the  sense,  there  would 
be  no  occasion  for  this  remark. 

A  record  of  three  successive  meetings^  (the  first,  Febru- 
ary 8th,  and  the  last,  March  25th,)  was  made  out,  approved.^ 
and  voted  by  the  church.  The  following^  a  part  of  the 
record  of  the  meeting,  March  25th,  a  copy  of  v^hich,.  on 
the  same  paper  with  other  records,  was  voted  by  the 
church,  transmitted  to  Dr.  W.  and  has  since  been  lost,  is 
here  added,  as  it  is  important  to  illustrate  after  proceedings 
of  a  committee  of  the  church  before  a  Council  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  1816. 

"  This  meeting  of  the  church  was  appointed  for  the  pur- 
pose  of  inquiring  into  the  true  meaning,  extent  and  appli- 
cation of  the  vote  at  the  last  meeting,  Feb.  16th;  and  also 
of  ascertaining  the  sentiraents  of  fht  church,  whether  they 


8 

were  satisfied  with  Mr.  W.  as  a  Christian  minister ;  and 
whether  they  wished,  or  not,  that  his  pastoral  relation  to 
them  should  be  dissolved.  No  vote  or  resolution  was 
passed  explanatory  of  the  vote  above-mentioned,  nor  rela- 
tive to  the  other  matters  proposed  for  consideration."— 
[This  record  should  have  been  inserted  before  the  vote  of 
adjournment.] 

Dr.  W.  the  senior  pastor,  was  particular  to  state  in  his 
record  of  this  meeting,  that  it  was  w^irned  by  the  junior 
pastor  the  24.th  of  March,  and  held  the  next  day  ;  while 
he  omitted  to  mention  the  object  for  which  it  was  appoint- 
ed, as  contained  in  the  record  transmitted  to  him  ;  and  al- 
so the  fact,  that  the  meeting  was  warned  by  the  junior  pas- 
tor with  his  concurrence  and  approbation.  The  purpose 
and  time  of  the  meeting  were  particularly  stated  to  the  se- 
nior pastor  before  it  was  notified,  and  he  concurred  in  it 
without  any  objection,  either  as  to  the  object  or  time  of 
the  appointment. 

The  reasons  that  operated  with  the  junior  pastor  in  ap- 
pointing this  meeting  of  the  church,  may  be  seen  from  a 
3t:itement  of  facts.  The  church  and  society  in  Brooklyn 
had  been  considerably  agitated  for  more  than  two  months, 
through  the  influence  of  a  few  individuals,  in  consequence 
of  a  change  in  the  views  of  the  junior  pastor  respecting  the 
supreme  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Several  members  of 
the  church  had  been  vigilant  and  active  in  endeavouring 
to  produce  an  alarm  in  the  church  and  society  on  account 
of  this  change.  On  the  16th  of  February,  the  church 
passed  a  vote  upon  the  Trinity,  which,  from  the  circum- 
stances that  occasioned  and  attended  it,  appeared  to  have 
been  designed  by  those  who  moved  it,  as  an  implied  pub- 
lick  censure  of  the  opinions  of  their  pastor.  The  excite- 
ment among  the  people,  arising  from  the  apprehension  that 
the  errours  of  their  pastor  were  destructive  in  their  tenden- 
cy and  fatal  in  their  effects,  must  necessarily  be  regarded 
by  a  Christian  minister  with  a  feeling  concern  for  his  own 
situation,  and  for  that  of  his  people.  Among  those  that 
professed  the  greatest  zeal  for  truth,  the  most  pointed  pas- 
sages of  scripture  against  false  teachers  had  become  cur- 
rent and  familiar ;  and  though  used,  in  some  instances, 
with  atadied  caution,  their  uitended  application  and  effect 


9 

were  by  no  means  doubtful  in  the  minds  of  those  tl^at  were 
accustomed  to  hear  them. 

As  few  had  conversed  with  Mr.  W.  upon  his  pa;rticula^ 
sentiments,  he  wished  the  congregation  to  be  acquuintec 
with  his  general  views  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  that  the 
church  and  society  might  be  prepared,  if  they  were  dis- 
posed, and  circumstances  should  require  it,  to  act  deci- 
sively respecting  him  as  their  minister.  He  accordingly 
dehvered  a  publrck  discourse,  in  which  he  endeavoured 
briefly  to  lay  open  his  particular  opinions,  in  distinction 
from  what  is  commonly  considered  the  orthodox  faith ; 
opinions,  which  he  had  but  intimated  in  publick  before,  in 
two  short  sentences  of  a  former  discourse.  At  the  close 
of  the  publick  exercises  of  the  Sabbath,  immediately  after 
Mr.  W.'s  discourse,  in  which  were  exhibited  his  distinct 
and  peculiar  sentiments,  a  member  of  the  church*  (respect- 
ed for  his  age  and  standing,  and  distinguished  for  his  zeal 
in  opposition  to  Mr.  W.)  with  much  earnestness  and  vio- 
lence called  upon  the  assembly,  as  they  were  about  to  re- 
tire, to  pause  J  directed  their  attention  to  the  preacher  ; 
and;  in  view  of  the  sentiments  that  had  been  delivered  from 
the  desk,  denounced  him  as  a  false  teacher,  and  admonish- 
ed the  congregation  to  beware  of  his  instructions,  as  full  of 
philosophy  and  vain  deceit. f 

In  view  of  these  facts,  Mr.  W.  was  anxious,  as  appears 
from  the  record  that  was  omitted,  [see  the  record,]  and 
that  ought  to  have  been  inserted,  to  know  the  minds  of  the 
church  respecting  him  as  tlieir  minister,  and  with  respect 
to  the  meaning  of  a  certain  vote,  which,  from  its  doubt- 
ful phraseology,  the  cautious  silence  of  those  that  moved 
it,  and  their  reluctance  to  explain  at  the  time  it  was  passed, 
appeared  to  have  been  introduced  with  a  particular  design, :]: 
and  to  have  an  alarming  tendency  upon  the  peace  and  tran- 
quillity of  the  church.  While  thus  observing  the  move- 
ments of  tliose  that  had  influence  in  the  church  ;  their 

*Capt.  Daniel  Tyler. 

^  I  will  not  omit  to  obstrve,  that  this  is  all  ihs  friendly  admonition,  within  my 
reccllection,  that  this  gentleman  ever  thought  proper  to  administer  to  his  pastor,  either 
pu'olickly  or  privately,  to  leclaim  him  from  what  he  considered  a  most  daigerous  er--- 
Eour,  And,  indeed,  the  admonition  admininistered  seemed  piincipally  intended  as 
an  alarm  or  warning  to  the  congregation. 

X  Mr,  W.  not  being  able  to  obtain  an  explanation,  wished  to  know  of  them,  if  thej> 
intended  by  it  to  impose  upon  him  any  restriction  as  to  avowing  or  pieashipg  his  »ei»- 
tiinsnis.     They  were  silent;  they  gave  him  no  answer. 
Q 


10 

piiblick  acts,  their  private  insinuations  and  publick  re- 
proaches, evidently  designed  to  destroy  his  reputation  as  a 
Christian  teacher ;  it  was  impossible  for  Mr.  W.  not  to  be 
;solicitous  to  be  relieved  from  the  suspense  necessarily  at* 
tending  his  situation,  by  obtaining  the  sentiments  of  the 
church  respecting  him  as  their  pastor.  He  hoped  and  be- 
lieved, that  none  v^^ho  were  opposed  to  his  ministry  would 
be  so  disingenuous  as  to  conceal  their  sentiments  with  re- 
s])ect  to  him,  or  to  express  them  in  ambiguous  terms^ 
They  did  not,  however,  think  proper,  at  the  meeting, 
(with  the  exception  of  a  few  individuals,)  to  disclose  their 
sentiments  in  relation  to  the  subjects  proposed  for  consid- 
eration. And,  indeed,,  these  individuals  expressed  noth- 
')ig  of  their  opinions  and  feelings  in  regard  to  the  propriety 
of  Mr.  W.'s  dismission. 

Before  the  meeting  was  adjourned,  Mr.  W.  proposed  to 
unite  v/ith  the  church  in  calling  a  Mutual  Council,  to  take 
a  viev/  of  all  difficulties,  and  to  give  their  advice.  A  Mu- 
tual Council  was  agreed  upon  at  the  adjourned  meeting" 
for  that  purpose,  and  convened  at  the  time  appointed. 

Record  of  the  Adjourned  Meeting, 

"  March  29th — The  church  met  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

"  Foted^  to  accept  of  Mr.  Willson's  proposal  to  call  a 
Mutual  Council  to  consider  existing  matters  of  difficulty, 
and  advise  to  measures  for  terminating  them  ;  and  agreed 
to  invite  the  Rev.  Joseph  Sumner,  D.  D.  of  Shrewsbury, 
Andrew  Lee.  D.  D.  of  Lisbon,  and  Rev.  Abiel  Williams, 
of  Dudley,  with  delegates  from  the  churches  of  which 
they  are  pastors,  to  meet  at  Brooklyn,  on  Wednesday,  the 
first  day  of  May  next,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  to  afford  that 
advice  and  direction,  which  it  is  hoped  may  happily  tend 
to  the  restoration  of  peace  among  tis. 

'*  Fated,  that  Joseph  Scarborough,  Esq.  Capt.  Moses 
Clark,  and  Capt.  Benjamin  Pierce,  should  be  a  committee 
to  lay  matters  of  grievance  before  the  Council." 

The  Council  met  at  the  time  appointed,  the  first  of 
IVIay  ;  and,  after  forming,  adjourned  to  the  meeting-house 
to  attend  to  business. 


11 

Statement  before  the   Council  hy  the  Committee  of  the 

Church, 

"  The  committee  of  the  church,  appointed  to  lay  their 
matters  of  grievance  before  this  venerable  Council,  would 
beg  leave  to  exhibit  the  following  statement : 

*'  That  for  a  great  length  of  time,  under  the  ministration 
of  their  Rev.  senior  pastor,  previous  to  his  labours'  being- 
interrupted  by  the  infirmities  of  age,  this  church  enjoyed 
linusual  peace  and  tranquillit}*. 

"That,  from  its  first  organization,  it  hath  uniformly 
professed  the  belief  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the 
real  proper  deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  essen- 
tial articles  of  the  Christian  system,  and  as  lying  at  the 
foundation  of  all  our  hope. 

"  That  when  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson  was  ordained  over 
this  church  as  a  colleague  pastor,  he  was  ordained  by  a 
Trinitarian  Council ;  and  by  the  profession  which  he  then 
made,  was  considered  as  being  consentaneous  with  the 
church  on  these  important  subjects. 

"  That,  in  process  of  time,  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson 
hath  departed  from  these  articles  of  faith ;  and  hath  ex- 
pressly declared,  not  only  in  private,  but  also  from  the  pul- 
pit,  that  it  is  his  prevailing  opinion,  that  the  Lord  Je^us 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  not,  in  his  own  nature  as  a  di- 
vine person,  equal  and  eternal  with  the  Father,  the  supreme 
and  self-existent  God. 

''  That  this  change  of  opinion  as  to  the  character  of  the 
Saviour,  being  frequently  and  clearly  evinced,  has  wound- 
ed the  feelings  of  not  a  few,  who  feel  it  their  indispensable 
duty  to  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father,  in 
obedience  to  what  they  find  written,  John  v.  23  ;  fully  be- 
lieving, that  they  who  do  not  honour  the  Son  as  they  hon- 
our the  Father,  do  not  honour  the  Father. 

"  And  as  the  church,  on  account  of  this  important 
change  of  sentiment,  can  no  longer  be  edified  under  his 
ministration,  they  would  request  the  advice  of  this  venera- 
ble Council  as  to  measures  to  be  taken  for  the  removal  of 
difficulties  and  restoration  of  peace. — And  may  the  bless- 
ing of  God  attend  all  efforts  to  accomplish  these  desirable 
ends."    * 


12 

This  statement,  both  for  its  contents  and  the  circum- 
stances attending  it,  ought  not  to  pass  u  ithout  notice. 

1.  It  declares,  "  that  this  church,  from  its  first  organi- 
2:ation,  has  uniformly  professed  the  belief  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  the  real  proper  deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  ns  being  essential  articles  of  the  Christian  system, 
and  as  lying  at  the  foundation  of  all  our  hope." 

Such  a  declaration,  it  is  presumed,  could  nevtr  have 
been  expected  by  the  church  from  any  of  its  members, 
who  arc  distinguished  for  good  sense,  candour  and  integ- 
lity.  The  extreme  incorrectness  of  this  part  of  the  state- 
ment must  be  obvious  to  every  unbiassed  mind,  acquaint- 
ed uith  the  records  and  practice  of  the  church. 

I'lie  church  in  Brooklyn  has  long  been  distinguished 
from  most  of  the  other  churches  in  the  county  of  Wind- 
ham for  its  liberality  in  matters  of  faith.  In  making  this 
declaration,  I  wish  it  to  be  understood,  that  this  church 
has  not  required  of  its  members  a  profession  of  their  belief 
in  the  Trinity,  the  supreme  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
other  particular  doctrines  of  what  is  commbnly  called  the 
orthodox  creed,  as  most  other  churches  have  done.* 

It  is  well  known,  that  several  clerical  gentlemen,  and 
others  in  the  county,  who  claim  to  be  sound  in  the  faith, 
have  been  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  church  and  people 
in  Brooklyn,  and  their  aged  pastor,  in  terms  of  disapproba- 
tion and  reproach,  for  what  they  considered  their  lax  and 
latitudinarian  principles. 

The  fact  respecting  the  church  in  Brooklyn  is  believed  to  be 
simply  this.  Its  members  have  generally  considered  them- 
selves believers  in  the  Trinity,  as  also  their  pastor ;  though 
an  assent  to  this  doctrine,  or  a  profession  of  their  belief  in 

*  I  ir.fntion  piher  churchts,  because  it  is  probabic  that  ihe  committee  wished  to 
bave  it  ur.dtrstcod  by  the  Ecclesiastical  CourcU,  that  this  chuich  was  originally  estab- 
lished, and  h;id  contioued  to  piaclise,  upon  the  same  principles  wiih  other  churches 
•who  were  known  to  leco^nize,  in  theii  adcnijsion  ot  members,  what  is  commonly 
conside'ed  the  ouhodox  lai;h  ;  or  because  tne  best  apology  that  can,  peihaps,  be  of- 
fered by  the  committee  for  presenting  a  statement  so  incorrtct,  is  the  fact,  that  it  wsi 
prepared  by  a  Rev.  gentlfifian  in  ihe  neighbourhood,  Mr.  Dow,  of  Thompson,  to 
v,'ho!n  they  applied  to  assist  them  as  counsel ;  whose  tone  of  religious  sentiments  is 
always  torrai ;  and  who,  in  preparing  the  statement,  probably  drew  it  up  under  the 
impression,  that  the  chuich  in  Brooklyn  were,  ox  ought  to  have  beev,  as  orthodox  as 
tmidj  and  the  church  of  which  he  was  pastor.  Ke  probably  thought  it  a  favourable 
lime  to  lepifsent  the  church  in  3fooklyn  as  declaring,  through  the  agency  of  their 
committee,  that  thty  had  professed  the  same  opinions,  and  were  established,  as  to  doc- 
kines,  upon  the  saire  foundation  as  other  churches  which  he  considered  sound  in  the 
iiith,  '1  lie  committee,  notwithstanding,  aie  rtsponsible  for  the  statement;  and  ought 
net  tQ  ha^^e  jieldtd  iijipiitjlly  to  the  views  and  feelings  of  their  Rev.  counsellor. 


13 

it,  has  never  been  regarded  in  practice  as  essential  to  the 
Christian  character,  or  to  tlie  enjoyment  of  Christian  priv# 
ileajes  in  the  church. 

The  committee  declare,  that  "  the  church  have  uniformly 
professed  their  belief  of  this  doctrine,  as  lying  at  the  foun- 
dation of  all  their  hope." 

From  this  it  would  seem,  that  the  church  had  ever  pub- 
lickly  avowed  their  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as 
essential  to  the  Christian's  hope.  It  is  however  a  fact,  ca- 
pable of  the  most  satisfactory  and  abundant  proof,  that,  for 
nearly  three  years  previous  to  this  statement  of  the  com- 
mittee, (during  which  time  about  thirty  persons  were  ad- 
mitted, upon  examination,  to  the  communion  of  the  church,) 
there  was  seldom,  if  ever,  any  inquiry  of  those  that  were 
admitted  as  members,  respecting  their  belief  in  the  Trini- 
ty, or  the  real  proper  deity  of  Jesus  Christ. 

When  individuals  manifested  a  desire  to  become  united 
to  tlie  church,  as  professed  friends  and  disciples  of  Christ, 
it  was  usual  for  the  pastors  to  be  together  to  converse 
with  them,  and  recommend  them  to  the  consideration  and 
acceptance  of  the  church.  The  conversation  with  these 
individuals  was  generally  held  at  the  house  of  the  senior 
pastor,  who,  at  the  close  of  the  conversation,  almost  uni- 
formly read  to  them  the  covenant  that  had  been  in  use  in 
the  church,  to  obtain  their  assent  to  it.  This  covenant  con- 
tains nothing  of  the  Trinity,  or  of  the  real  proper  deity  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Their  assent  to  this  covenant  was  consid- 
ered by  the  senior  as  well  as  junior  pastor  a  sufficient  test 
of  their  faith  ;  and  I  do  not  recollect  the  examination  of 
any  person  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  or  the  essen- 
tial divinity  of  Christ. 

Thus  it  is  so  far  from  being  true,  that  the  church,  a- 
greeably  to  the  statement  of  the  committee,  has  from  its 
first  organization  professed  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  as  a  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian  foith, 
that,  for  several  years,  as  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the 
practice  of  the  church,  it  has  not  required  a  professed  belief 
in  this  doctrine  in  any  instance  ;  and  much  less  as  a  neces- 
sary qualification  for  Christian  communion. 

Much  has  been  said,  in  the  late  controversy,  by  individ- 
uals, of  the  original  covenant,  subscribed  by  those  that  first 
formed  themselves  into  a  church.     This  covenant  recogv 


14 

nizes  the  distinction  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as 
one  God  ;  yet  it  does  not  maintain  a  professed  belief  m 
this  distinction  as  necessary  to  Christian  fellowship,*  but 
particularly  provides  for  the  admission  of  any  persons  to 
the  communion  of  the  church  who  exhibit  credible  and 
satisfactory  evidence  of  their  piety,  by  religious  and  exem- 
plary conversation.  But  this  covenant,  it  is  to  be  observ- 
ed, as  an  ordinary  test  of  faith  and  character,  has  long  been 
out  of  use  ;  or,  what  is  more  probable,  it  was  never  used 
at  all.  It  was  unknown  to  most  of  the  present  members 
of  the  chi?rch,  until  the  late  controversy,  and  is  still  un- 
known to  several  of  its  most  aged  members.  Indeed,  it  is 
fully  believed,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  church  are  still 
unacquainted  with  its  contents,  except  what  they  have  oc- 
casionally received  from  others. 

I  shall  here  insert  the  only  covenant  used  in  the  church 
in  the  admission  of  members,  that  the  candid  and  intelli- 
gent may  judge,  whether  this  church  have  unformly  pro- 
fessed a  belief  in  the  Trinity,  &c.  as  lying  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  their  hope. 

Coiienant, 

"  You  do  now,  in  the  presence  of  God,  his  holy  angels, 
and  this  assembly,  solemnh^,  seriously,  and  sincerely,  as 
far  as  you  know  your  own  heart,  avouch  the  Lord  Jeho^ 
vah,  the  only  true  and  living  God,  to  be  your  God  ;  and 
profess  your  belief  of  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith, 
as  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  You  give  up  yourself  to 
God  in  Christ,  acknowledging  God  the  Father  to  be 
your  God  and  sovereign.  You  give  yourself  to  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  your  only  prophet  and  teacher ; 
your  priest  and  atonement ;  your  king  and  lawgiver. 
You  give  yourself  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  your  only  sancti- 
fier  and  comforter.     And  you  give  up  yourself  to  the 

*  The  following  is  ihe  3d  article  of  the  original  covenant  :— 

"  Thirdly,  Wc  do  covenant  and  promise  fas  much  as  ia  us  lies)  the  best  spiritual 
good  of  all  that  at  present  are,  or  shall  hereafter,  in  a  way  of  gospel  order,  become 
members  of  this  chuich,  by  instruction,  reprehensioo,  exhortation,  consolation,  aad 
spiritual  watchfulness  over  them  for  good  ;  and  we  do  farther  covenant  and  promise 
(as  God  shall  help)  to  receive,  upon  clfers,  to  our  full  communion  in  a  church  state, 
all  such  persons  as  are  orthodox  in  faith,  free  from  scandal,  and  able  to  examine  them- 
selves and  discern  the  Lord's  body;  as  also  to  rest  satisfied  with  such  admittance  of 
adult  persons  into  (his  church  as  is  performed,  either  by  making  a  confession  of  faith,  and 
relation  ol  a  work,  of  grace  on  their  hearts,  or  producing  testimonies  of  their  reputed  pic- 
/,  or  who  do  charitably  discover  :hs  same  by  religious  and  exemplary  conversation/' 


15 

watch  and  care  of  this  church  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
promising,  by  the  help  of  his  Spirit,  to  walk  with  him  and 
his  church  in  all  ways  of  holy  communion  and  fellowship, 
and  in  due  observance  of  all  his  ordinances,  according  to 

his  will,  as  revealed  in  his  word. This  you  profess  and 

promise. 

"  Min. — I  then  promisef  in  the  name  of  this  church, 
that,  by  assistance  of  the  same  Spirit,  we  will  walk  toward 
you  in  all  Christian  love  and  watchfulness,  for  our  mutual 
comfort  and  edification  in  the  Lord  Jesus." 

I  now  proceed  to  notice  other  parts  of  the  statement. — • 
The  committee  declare,  "  that  when  the  Rev.  Luther 
Willson  was  ordained  over  this  church,  as  a  colleague  pas- 
tor, he  was  ordained  by  a  Trinitarian  Council ;  and,  by 
the  profession  which  he  then  made,  was  considered  as  be- 
ing consentaneous  with  the  church  on  these  important 
subjects," 

That  Mr.  W.  before  and  at  the  time  of  his  ordination, 
avowed  his  belief  in  the  Trinity,  and  the  essential  divinity 
of  Christ,  is  true.  But  that  he  regarded  such  a  belief  as 
essential  to  the  hope  and  privilege  of  a  Christian,  is  wholly 
a  mistake. 

At  the  time  Mr.  W.  was  a  candidate  for  settlement  in 
Brooklyn,  a  committee  was  appointed  by  the  society,  con- 
sisting principally  of  members  of  the  church,  to  converse 
with  him,  and  to  ascertain  if  he  was  a  Hopkinsian  or  an 
Arian,  Upon  examination,  he  gave  them  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  he  was  not  a  Hopkinsian  or  an  Arian.  At  the 
same  time  he  was  particular  to  inform  them,  that  though 
he  differed  in  opinion  from  Hopkinsians  and  x\rians,  and 
believed  them  both  to  be  in  an  errour  as  to  their  peculiar 
sentiments,  yet  he  considered  them  as  Christians,  entitled 
to  his  respect  and  fellowship.  He  was  explicit  in  stating; 
his  views,  that  a  diversity  of  opinion  in  these  respects 
ought  not  to  occasion  distance  and  separation  among  breth- 
ren. He  also  stated  to  the  committee,  that  in  the  course 
of  years  from  the  time  he  was  licensed  to  preach,  his  views 
of  Christian  doctrines  had  in  some  respects  altered,  and 
that,  in  pursuing  his  inquiries,  he  still  considered  himself 
liable  to  change.  He  gave  them  no  assurance  that  his  o- 
pinions  would  continue  the  sarne^  even  upon  the  subjects  in 


IG 

question.  He  was  e5:pilcit  in  declarinj^  his  determination 
to  adhere  to  the  scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  his 
endeavours  to  interpret  them  according  to  his  best  and 
most  impartial  judgment,  whatever  might  be  the  result  of 
his  inquiries,  and  however  diflerent  might  be  his  views  in 
future  upon  the  subjects  in  question,  or  upon  any  of  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity.       '  • 

Mr.  \V.  never  gave  the  committee  the  least  intimation 
of  his  belief  in  the  Trinity  as  a  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  Christian  religion.  He  clearly  expressed  to  them  his 
flivourable  opinion  of  both  Jrians  and  Hopkinsians  as  real 
Christians,  from  whom  the  hand  of  fellowship  ought  not 
to  be  withheld.  Such  were  his  views,  and  such  his  pro- 
fession, when  the  church  in  Brooklyn  invited  him  to  settle 
with  them  as  colleague  pastor  with  Dr.  Whitney. 

From  conversation  with  the  committee,  the  terms  of  the 
church  covenant,  the  unanimity  of  the  church  in  choosing 
him  as  their  minister,  and  from  acquaintance  with  their 
aged  pastor,  Mr.  W.  had  not  the  least  reason  to  believe, 
that  the  church  in  Brooklyn  considered  or  professed  a  be- 
lief in  the  Trinity,  as  essential  to  tJieir  salvation,  or  to  the 
Christian's  hope.  If  the  church,  at  the  time  of  Mr.  W.'s 
settlement, _  attached  such  importance  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  they  certainly  did  not  make  it  known 
to  him.  The  committee  could  not,  therefore,  state  with 
any  propriety^  that,  "  by  the  profession  which  he  then 
niade,  he  was  considered  as  being  consentaneous  with 
the  church  on  these  important  subjects,"  if  the  church, 
agreeably  to  their  statement,  had  uniformly  profess- 
ed their  belief  of  the  l^inity,  and  of  the  proper  deity  of 
Christ,  as  essential  to  the  Christian  system,  and  as  lying  at 
the  foundation  of  all  their  hope  ;  for  they  hierv,  that  Mr. 
W.  at  the  time  of  his  setdement,  did  not  consider  a  belief 
in  the  Trinity  and  the  deity  of  Christ,  thus  essential. 

It  is  fl)rtlicr  stated,  "  that  Mr.  W.'s  change  of  sentiments, 
being  frequcndy  and  clearly  evinced,  had  wounded  the 
ieelings  of  not  a  'i^w,  who  fully  believed,  that  they  who  do 
3^ot  honour  the  Son"  (meaning  equally,  in  the  character  of 
Supreme)  "as  they  honour  the  Father,  do  not  honour  the 
Father." 

It  Is  evident  that  the  committee  wished  it  to  be  under- 
stood by  the  Council,  that  the  views  of  Mr.  W-  were  so 


17 

erroneous  as  to  prove  him  essentially  deficient  in  Christian 
piety  and  obedience  to  God.  For  if  those  who  do  not 
honour  the  Son  as  they  honour  the  Father,  by  acknowledg- 
ing him  to  be  God,  equal  with  the  Father,  do  not  honour  the 
Father y^  they  certainly  do  not  possess  the  character  of  God's 

*The  committee,  it  is  presumed,  indulged  the  hope  of  satisfying  the  minds  of  the 
Council,  that  a  considerable  number  regarded  the  crrour  of  their  pastor  as  absolutely 
inconsisteat  with  thristian  principles ;  and  to  effect  their  object  in  this  particular, 
they  inadvertently  or  intentionally,  by  the  use  of  additional  and  qualifying  terms^ 
spoke  a  language  different  from  that  of  our  Saviour  in  the  passage  to  which  they 
refer.  Our  Saviour  says,  ♦'  He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honouteih  not  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  him."  The  comtnittee  would  have  it  understood,  that  "  they  who 
do  not  honour  the  Sou  as  tk:y  honour  the  Father,  do  not  honour  the  Father."  According 
10  my  understanding,  there  may  be  a  difference  between  not  honouring  the  Son  at  all, 
and  not  honouring  him  as  use  honour  the  Father. 

Suppose,  for  example,  a  worthy  gentlemin  possesses  a  large  estate,  and  has  many 
servants  at  his  command,  whom  he  employs  to  cuUivaie  and  improve  it.  Suppose, 
for  his  own  convenience,  he  should  commit  the  management  of  his  affairs  to  his  only 
son,  who  is  as  worthy  as  himself;  and  should  require  his  servants  to  pay  the  same  re- 
spect to  hit  son  that  they  had  done  to  the  father;  informing  tlicm,  that,  if  they  did 
not  obey  and  respect  his  son,  he  should  consider  it  a  matter  of  disrespect  to  himself. 
T-fay  we  not  imagine  these  servants  to  be  affectionate,  obedient,  and  respectful  to  the 
son,  though  not  equally  as  they  were  to  the  father  ?  And  would  it  be  just  to  con- 
clude, because  they  are  not  perfectly  obedient  to  the  will  of  the  father  in  rendering  every 
degree  of  reipect  to  the  son  that  was  required,  that  they  do  not  honour  iht  son,  nor  the 
father,  but  are  wholly  disrespectful  and  disobedient  to  both  ? — Allowing,  for  a  mo- 
ment, the  views  of  the  committee  to  be  correct,  in  requiring  all  to  honour  the  Son 
(meaning  in  his  character  as  God)  equally  as  they  honour  the  Father,  does  it  necessarily 
Sollow,  that  all  who  do  not  thus  honour  the  Son,  do  not  honour  him  at  all  ?  Is  there 
ao  medium  betwetiii  the  highest  reverence  and  absolute  neglect  or  irreverence  ?  Is 
(there  no  medium  between  perfect  faith  and  positive  unbelief  ?  God  requires  us  to  be 
merciful  even  as  he  is  merciful.  But  does  it  follow,  because  we  are  not  as  merciful  as 
God,  (I  refer  to  the  degree,  not  the  nature  of  the  virtue  required)  that  we  are  destitute 
of  mercy  ?  God  requires  servants  to  be  obedient  unto  their  own  masters,  and  to  please 
them  well  in  all  things,  showing  all  good  fidelity.  But  are  we  to  isfer,  because  ser- 
vants are  not  obedient  in  all  things,  and  perject  examples  of  fidelity,  that  they  are  not 
sn  any  degree  obedient  and  faithful  ?  It  it  the  duty  of  a  son  to  love  and  honour  a  fa- 
ther according  to  his  real  dignity,  kindness  and  virtue.  But  shall  we  conclude  that  the 
son  who  does  not  love  him  as  affectionately,  and  honour  him  as  highly  as  he  deserves,  is 
destitute  of  fi'i&l  affection  and  respect,  and  in  no  degree  the  object  of  his  father's  com- 
placency and  approbation  ?  For  myself,  I  believe,  that  a  son  may  not  esteem  and 
honour  his  father  in  proportion  to  the  real  worth  and  excellence  of  his  character,  and 
yet,  in  a  degree,  be  respectful,  affectionate,  and  obedient.  So.  I  suppose,  a  believer  in 
Christ,  from  imperfect  knowledge,  or  a  mistaken  apprehension  of  his  real  dignity, 
(rather  than  from  want  ot  <tifection)  may  not  love  and  honour  him  in  so  high  a  char- 
acter as  he  actually  possesses,  and  >et  be  a  sincere  friend,  an  obedient  servant,  a  true  dis- 
ciple; one  who,  ia  honouring  the  Son,  (though  not  so  highly  as  he  ought,)  honours 
the  Father,  that  sent  him. 

To  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  referred  to  in  the  statement,  in  which  Christ 
is  thought  to  claim  far  himself  the  worship  of  the  supreme  God,  I  will  briefly  remark, 
that  the  ground  on  which  all  meH  arc  to  honour  the  Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Fa- 
ther, is  not,  his  underived  and  esstntial  divinity,  but  the  ofSce  he  sustains  as  one  c«f»< 
missioned  or  ordaimd  -if  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  world.  "  The  Father  judgeth  no 
man;  but  hath  committeJ.  .ill  judgment  unto  the  Son,  f^jf  all  men  should  honour  the 
Son  even  as  they  honour  the  Father.  He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not 
the  Father,  which  hath  seat  him."  The  judgment  of  the  Son,  which  he  derives  from 
the  Father,  and  adnriniste^s  by  his  authority  and  appointment,  is  as  peifect  and  infalli- 
ble as  if  it  were  administered  immediately  by  God  himself.  We  are  therefore  to  honoui' 
r.he  judginens  of  the  Si>i3  even  as  the  judgmsnt  of  she  Father.     In  the  distiibution  of 


18 

children ;  they  are  not  an  example  of  that  filial  reverence; 
love  and  obedience  which  are  essential  to  the  character  of  a 
real  Christian.  The  committee,  it  seems,  wishing  to  heal 
and  terminate  existing  difficulties,  and  in  pursuance  of  an 
object  so  desirable,  did  not  scruple  to  include  their  pastor 
in  the  number  of  those  who  were  to  be  regarded  as  destitute 
of  true  ftiendship  and  piety  to  God.  This  I  think  a  fair 
construction  of  this  part  of  the  statement ;  for  the  individual 
whose  errours  are  such  that  he  does  not  honour  God,  hi& 
heavenly  Father,  can  have  na  ckim  to  the  character  of  sin- 
cere piety  and  exemplary  virtue.  He  cannot  be  a  friend  of 
God,  or  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  committee,  in  closing  their  statement,  inform  the 
Council,  that,  *'  as  the  church,  on  accotmt  of  Mr.  W.'s 
important  change  of  sentiment,,  can  no  longer  be  edified 
under  his  ministration,  they  v/ould  request  their  advice  as 
to  measures  to  be  taken  for  the  removal  of  difficulties  and 
restoration  of  peace." 

The  committee  wished  the  Council  to  understand,  and 
therefore  thought  it  proper  to  state,  in  direct  terms,  that 
the  church  could  no  longer  be  edified  under  Mr.  W.'s 
ministration.  How  did  the  committee  know  this  ?  They 
certainly  did  not  obtain  their  information  from  the  churcho 
Mr.  W.  after  his  change  of  sentiments,  had  more  than 
once  earnestly  requested  the  church,  at  publit:k  meetings, 
and  even  at  the  last  meeting  before  the  convening  of  the 
Council,  to  declare  whether  they  were  dissatisfied  with 
him  as  their  minister  ;  but  they  had  never  expressed  their 
dissatisfaction,  or  their  desire  that  his  pastoral  labours  a- 
mong  them  should  be  discontinued. 

From  the  complexion  of  the  whole  statement,  it  was  ev» 
idently  the  plan  of  the  committee  so  to  manage  the  aflPair 
before  the  Council,  as  to  convince  them,  if  possible,  of  the 
necessity  of  Mr.  W.'s  dismission,  with  the  expectation 
that  tlie  Council  would  advise  to  such  an  event.  This 
was  what  the  committee  were  desirous  to  have  accomplish- 

rewards  and  punUhments,  we  may  be  $ure  thai  his  decision  is  unerringly  juit  f  for  the 
VathcT  imparts  to  him  knowledge  aad  power  adequate  to  the  work,  which  he  has  ap- 
pointed hira.  Of  this  our  Saviour  expressly  intorms  us.  '•  I  can  of  mine  own  self 
do  nothing.  As  I  hear,  I  judge ;  and  my  judgment  is  just ;  becnuse  I  seek  not  mine 
own  will,  bat  the  will  oj  the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me."  Thus  ws  conclude:  He 
tiiat  does  not  honour  the  Son  as  one  whom  God  hath  sent,  as  one  whom  he  has  com- 
fitiisioned  or  appointed  to  render  to  all  according  Co  their  works,  does  not  honour  thr 
Fiiher,  who  gave  him  his  authority. 


IP 

ed,  althcugh  the  professed  object  of  ciViling-  the  Council 
was  "to  obtain  their  advice  and  direction  as  to  proper 
steps  to  be  taken  for  healing  and  terminating  existing  diffi- 
culties." 

The  whole  business  of  calling  a  Council,  from  the  time 
the  proposal  was  made,  until  it  was  carried  into  eiFect,  was 
-conducted  upon  principles  apparently  pacifick  and  concil- 
iatory, and  professedly  with  a  design  to  effect  a  reconcilia- 
tion and  union,  where  differences  existed.  Thus  it  was 
understood  by  Mr.  W.  by  the  church,  and  by  the  society, 
who  had  a  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  their  ap- 
probation of  the  measure ;  and  thus  it  was  understood  by 
the  Council,  from  the  terms  of  the  letter  missive,  prepared 
by  Dr.  W.  the  senior  pdstor.  But  this  was  not  the  object 
of  the  committee.  It  was  their  design  to  manage  the  af= 
fair  as  cautiously  and  advantageously  as  possible,  to  ob= 
tain  the  advice  of  the  Council  in  favour  of  Mr.  W.'s  dis= 
mission.  If  by  any  means  they  could  convince  the  Coun- 
cil that  such  an  event  was  necessary,  or  expedient,  and 
could  procure  a  result  favourable  to  their  views,  they  had 
scarcely  a  doubt,  that  their  ultimate  object  would  be  ac- 
complished;  that  all  parties  would  concur  in  the  Results, 
from  a  respect  to  the  opinion  of  the  Council ;  and  that  the 
dismission  of  Mr.  W.  would  eventually  take  place. 

With  these  views,  the  committee  thought. it  proper,  in 
their  statement,  to  rnagnify  the  difficulty  on  account  of  the 
change  of  sentiment,  that  a  reconciliation  might  appear  to 
the  Council  altogether  impracticable,  and  that  the  removal 
of  their  pastor  from  his  relation  to  the  church  in  Brooklyn 
might  appear  the  only  method  of  restoring  peace. 

The  correctness  of  these  remarks,  as  to  the  design  of  the 
committee,  is  sufficiently  verified  by  the  statement,  com- 
pared with  the  covenant  and  records  of  the  church.  The 
statement  represents  the  church  in  Brooklyn  always  to 
have  been  highly  orthodox  in  their  profession  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  &c.  as  lying  at  the  foundation  of  all 
their  hope.  The  covenant  says,  no.  It  does  not  even  re- 
cognize the  distinction  of  three  persons  in  one  God  j 
nor  does  it  intimate  that  Christ  is  God. 

The  committee  represent  the  church  as  requesting  "  the 
advice  of  the  Council  as  to  measures  to  be  taken  for  the 
iffemoval  of  difficulties  and  restoration  of  peace;"  and  the 


20 

reason  assigned  for  making  this  request  is,  that  "the 
church,  on  account  of  Mr.  VV.'s  important  change  of  sen- 
timent, could  no  longer  be  edified  under  his  ministration.'* 
The  Council  were  requested  to  advise  to  measures  for  the 
removal  of  difFiculties.     But  how  was  it  possible  to  re- 
move the  difficulties  without  removing  the  pastor,  inasi 
much    "  as  the  church"    (according  to  the    committee) 
"  could  no  longer  be  edified  under  his  ministration." — - 
Thus  the  committee  employed  their  utmost  ingenuity  (or 
rather  the  ingenuity  of  their  Rev.  counsellor,  who  drew  up 
the  statement)  to  make  it  appear  to  the  Council,  without 
declaring  it  in  direct  terms,  that  the  church  considered  the 
removal  of  Mr.  W.  from  his  pastoral  labours  among  them 
the  only  method  of  removing  difficulties  and   restoring 
peace.     The  records,  however,  (particularly  the  record 
omitted  by  the  senior  pastor)  would  make  it  evident,  and 
did  make  it  evident  to  the  Council,  that  the  church  (though 
repeatedly  requested  to  shovir  their  minds  upon  the  subject) 
never  declared  themselves  dissatisfied  with  Mr.  W.'s  min= 
istry,  nor  their  opinion  or  wish  in  favour  of  his  dismission. 
The  introduction  of  the  statement  speaks  of  "  the  com- 
mittee of  the  church  appointed  to  lay  their  matters  of  griev- 
ance before  the  Council."  Dr.  Whitney,  the  senior  pastor,aI- 
so,  in  his  record  of  the  preceding  meeting,  used  nearly  the 
same  language.     From  this  it  would  seem,  that  the  church 
were  disaffected  and  figgrieved  with  Mr.  W.'s  ministry,  and 
had  authorized  the  committee  to  bring  forward  a  complaint 
against  their  pastor.     The  record  of  the  meeting  March 
29th,  though  made  by  the  senior  pastor,  will  however 
show,  that  the  proposal  to  call  a  Council  originated  with 
Mr.  W.  and  that  the  object  of  the  proposal  was  to  obtain 
the  opinion  and  advice  of  a  Council  as  to  measures  for  ter  • 
minating  existing  matters  of  difficulty.     It  never  entered 
tho.  mind  of  Mr,  VV.  that  he  and  the  church,  in  pursuance 
of  conciliatory  measures,  were  to  appear  before  the  Coun- 
cil  in  the  attitude  of  systematick  hostility  and  mutual  re- 
crimination.    It  did  not  occur  to  him,  that  this  would  be 
the* proper  method  of  "healing  and  terminating  difficul- 
ties."    Ke  expected,  before  the  Council,  a  candid  and  full 
disclosure  of  tlie  circumstances  that  had  occasioned  the 
difficulties,  and  that  tended  to  increase  them.    He  indulged 
the  hope,  that  all  concerned  would  make  it  a  matter  of 


SI 

principle  to  state  facts  with  fairness  and  precision,  and  that 
the  whole  affair  would  be  conducted  with  a  Christian  spir. 
it,  and  in  a  manner  ingenuous  and  respectful.  Mr.  W. 
had  not  the  least  expectation,  when  an  arrangement  was 
made  to  obtain  the  advice  of  a  Council,  that  the  commit- 
tee would  represent  the  church  in  the  capacity  of  complain- 
ants ;  or  that  they  would  call  in  a  neighbouring  minister 
to  prepare  a  false  and  exaggerated  statement,  and  to  re- 
proach their  pastor  for  his  infidelity  ;*  and  especially,  when 
they  knew  that  the  church  had  never  declared  themselves 
a,^grieved  with  his  ministry,  nor  laboured  with  him  to  con- 
vince him  of  any  errour  or  offence^  A  few  individuals 
(not  a  fourth  part  of  the  brethren  of  the  church)  had  con- 
versed with  Mr.  W,  respecting  his  chajige  of  sentiments, 
and  had  manifested  their  disapprobation  pf  his  opinions ; 
but  not  one  of  them  had  said,  or  intimated,  that  his  er- 
rours  were  such  as  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  piety  and 
virtue  of  a  Christian.  The  committee,  however,  would 
have  the  Council  believe,  that  the  church  considered  the 
errour  of  their  pastor  to  be  fundamental ;  that  the  church 
were  aggrieved,  and  could  no  longer  be  edified  with  his 
ministry  ;  and  that  the  church  had  appointed  them  to  make 
this  complaint, 

I  now  close  these  remarks  upon  the  statement  with  a 
it\Y  repetitions  and  additions. 

First.  The  statement  is  virtually  a  complaint  against  the 
pastor,  unauthorized  lay  the  church.  Thus  it  was  consid- 
ered by  the  Council ;  [see  the  Resuk.]  It  implicitly  rep- 
resents him  essentially  deficient  in  the  faith  and  piety  of 
the  gospel ;  an  unedifying  and  unprofitable  teacher  in  the 
Christian  church. 

Secondly.  The  Council  was  called,  by  mutual  agree- 
ment, "  to  give  their  advice  and  direction  as  to  proper 
steps  to  be  taken  for  healing  and  terminating  existing  dif. 
ficulties." 

•  The  Rev.  gentleman  wh*  was  counsel  for  the  committee,  in  the  coune  of  his  re- 
marks before  the  Ecclesiastical  Council,  referring  to  Mr,  W.  spoke  of  him  as  an  Ari- 
an.  Mr.  W.  interrupting  him,  wished  to  be  informed  if  he  meant  to  apply  to  him 
that  name  in  an  appropriate  sense,  as  designating  one  that  believed  our  Saviour  to  be  • 
created  being.  His  reply  was,  "  It  matters  not  whether  he  believe,  with  Arius,  that 
our  Saviour  is  a  created  being,  or  with  others  that  deny  his  r;it/ (/rWa^y  ;  we  can  no 
more  commune  with  him  that  denies  the  jupreme  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,  than  with  • 
Pagan  or  a  Mnssulman." 


22 

Tfiirdly.  The  committee  thought  it  proper,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  object  for  which  the  Council  was  called,  to  in- 
vite the  Rev.  Mr.  Dow,  of  Thompson,  one  of  the  most 
zealous  orthodox  clergymen  in  the  county,  to  counsel  and 
assist  them. 

Fourthly.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Dow  accordingly  came,  and 
assisted  them  in  preparing  the  complaint ;  and  also  thought 
it  liis  duty,  in  the  course  of  his  observations  before  the 
Council,  and  in  his  endeavours  to  restore  peace,  to  assign 
their  pastor,  on  the  ground  of  faith,  no  more  than  a  re- 
spectable rank  v/ith  Mussulmen  and  Pagans. 

Fifthly.  The  committee  who  invited,  or  employed,  the 
Rev.  gentleman  to  assist  them,  appeared  to  hear  him  with 
much  patience,  if  not  satisfaction  ;  at  least,  they  manifested 
before  the  Council  no  displeasure  at  the  censoriousness  of 
his  remarks. 

Sixthly.  The  complaint  against  the  pastor  was  never 
seen  nor  approved  by  the  church ;  nor  was  a  copy  of  it 
ever  presented  to  the  pastor,  nor  its  contents  made  known 
to  him,  until  it  was  read  before  the  CounciL 

Seventhly,  Deacon  Scarborough,  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  to  whom  the  statement,  I  have  no  doubt,  is 
principally  to  be  attributed,  declared  openly  in  society 
meeting,  only  two  days  before  it  was  read  to  the  Council, 
that  he  was  not  prepared  to  hold  up  his  hand  in  favour  of 
Mr.  W.'s  dismission. 

Eighthly.  Another  of  the  committee,  the  same  day,  be- 
ing asked  by  a  member  of  the  church,  if  the  committee  in- 
tended to  bring  any  complaint,  or  charges,  against  Mr.  W, 
before  the  Council,  replied,  that  he  did  not  know  whether 
they  should  bring  any  complaint  against  him,  or  not. 

This  was  the  manner  in  which  the  business  was  laid  be- 
fore the  Council  by  the  committee,  and  these  were  some 
of  the  principal  circumstances  attending  it.* 

*Tbe  Ecclesiisticil  Council,  before  whom  the  statement  wat  tnide,  formed  the  firit 
of  May  about  eleven  o'clock,  and  immediately  adjourned  to  the  meeting-hoase.  Afo 
ter  attending  to  the  ttatcmcat  and  a  few  observations  connected  with  it,  they  adjourn- 
ed until  two  o'clock  ;  at  which  time  the  church  met  according  to  appointment,  to  be  ia 
a  capacity  of  attending  to  any  questions  that  might  b:  proposed,  and  of  acting  upon 
any  subjects  that  should  be  thought  proper  to  be  laid  before  them.  After  Mr.  Dow, 
the  counsel  for  the  committee,  had  completed  his  remarks  in  support  of  the  statement, 
Mr.  Willson  observed  to  the  Council,  that  the  church  had  never  seen  the  statement; 
that  they  knew  nothing  uhat  it  contained.  He  wiihed,  therefore,  it  might  bs  read  ta 
the  church,  that  they  might  express  their  minds  upon  it,  and  manifest  by  their  vote, 
'before  the  Council,  whether  they  concurred  in  it.    Ag  soon  at  it  was  proposed  by 


23 

The  Result  of  the  Council  of  May  1,  1816. 

**  At  an  Ecclesiastical  Council  convened  at  Brooklyrx,' 
by  letters  from  the  congregational  church  of  Christ  in 
said  Brooklyn,  on  the  first  of  May,  1816  ;• — present, 

Rev.  JOSEPH  SUMNER,  D.D.  dxos^n  Moderator^ 
ANDREW  LEE,  D.  D.  Scribe , 
ABIEL  WILLIAMS; 

Delegates  y 

Thomas  W.  Ward  ; 
Deacon  Nathan  Lord  J 
Aaron  Tufts. 

"  The  Council,  after  forming,  adjourned  to  the  meeting- 
house, where  the  Moderator  addressed  the  throne  of  grace 
on  the  occasion. 

"  In  the  letters  missive  written  to  the  members  of  this 
Council,  they  are  informed,  *  that  matters  disquieting^  and 
interrupting  the  peace  of  the  church  in  this  place,  have  re- 
cently occurred,  and  are  of  such  magnitude  and  deleteri- 
ous tendency,  as  to  lead  to  a  wish  for  advice  and  assistance 
of  sister  churches  in  endeavours  to  prevent  their  increase, 
and  to  open  a  way  for  a  happy  termination  of  them.  That 
a  committee  of  the  church  will  lay  matters  before  the 
Council  for  their  consideration  and  direction  as  to  proper 
steps  to  be  taken  for  healing  and  terminating  the  existing 
difficulties.' 

"  When  the  Council  had  convened  and  formed,  the 
committee  of  the  church  exhibited  their  complain*:  against 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson,  junior  pastor  of  said  church,  setting 
forth,  that  he  had  changed  his  sentiments  since  his  settle- 
Mr.  w.  that  the  church  ihould  dechre  their  concurrence  or  non-concurrencc  in  the 
jtatement  of  the  committee,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Whitney,  the  senior  pastor,  when  he  founl 
that  the  church  were  to  be  called  upon  to  expresi  their  tninds  upon  the  atatement,  im- 
mediately arofe  and  »djourned  the  meetiog,  without  consulting  the  church  or  council 
as  to  the  adjournment ;  and  thus  prevented  the  chuich  from  declaring  their  minds  in 
regard  to  the  statement,  and  to  their  juiuor  pastor,  who  had  j'lst  been  censured  by 
Mr.  Dow,  the  committee's  counsel,  as  one  that  denied  the  Christian  faith.  This  was 
evidently  done  by  the  senior  pastor  to  save  the  committee  from  merited  reproach. 
Had  the  church  acted  in  the  case,  they  would  no  doubt  have  disapproved  of  the  state- 
ment. The  senior  pastor  was  aware  of  this  ;  and,  to  save  the  committee  fiom  the 
censure  of  the  church  in  making  a  fahe  repreicntation,  as  contained  in  the  statement, 
he  aisolutely,  without  consulting  the  church,  adjourned  the  meeting  until  the  next  d3,y 
to  hear  the  Result  of  Council.  The  Council,  however,  were  satisfied  of  the  incorrect- 
ness of  the  statement  from  the  examination  of  documents,  and  from  the  agreement  ot 
f.he  parties  as  lo  «ev<;ral  sasportant  facts. 


mcnt  aniong  them,  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; 
that  he  now  declared  it  his  prevailing  opinion, '  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  not,  in  his  own  na- 
ture as  a  divine  person,  equal  and  eternal  with  the  Father, 
the  supreme  and  self-existent  God.'  It  also  appeared  that 
t:\e  church  at  a  meeting  voted,  that  *  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  an  essential  and  fundamental  doctrine.'  But  in 
what  sense  they  considered  it  essential  and  fundamental, 
was  left  undetermined. 

*'  On  inquiry,  it  appears  to  this  Council,  that  Mr.  Will- 
son  considers  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  a  divine 
person,  and  entitled  to  divine  homage  ;  that  he  assents  to 
the  covenant  which  hath  been  used  in  this  church  as  cor- 
rect ;  and  fully  and  firmly  believes  the  doctrines  common- 
ly received  in  the  churches  of  our  country. 

"  It  does  not  appear  to  this  Council,  that  either  the 
church  or  society  in  this  place  consider  Mr.  Willson  as 
iiaving  forfeited  his  ministerial  character  by  his  change  of 
sentiments,  or  that  they  wish  his  removal  from  office  a- 
mong  them. 

"'Fhe  opinion  of  this  Council  respecting  Mr.  Willson's 
sentiments  is  not  required.  E\'ery  church  hath  a  right  to 
choose  their  own  pastor  :  Mr.  Willson  hath  been  chosen 
as  tlie  pastor  of  this  church  :  That  he  is  not  yet  the  man 
of  their  choice,  appears  by  nothing  which  hath  been  laid 
before  this  Council. 

"•'  The  Council,  agreeably  to  the  letters  sent  them,  can 
thic^reforc  only  advise  them  to  follow  the  things  ivhich 
?nake  for  peace^  and  xuherehy  one  may  edifij  another. 
They  earnestly  recommend  it  to  this  church  and  society  to 
put  on  charity^  which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness — to  bcai* 
with  one  another  ; — would  advise  them  to  search  the  scrip-' 
turest  and  Judge  of  themselves  what  is  right — what  the 
scriptures  teach  respecting  every  Christian  doctrine ;  to 
receive  v/hat  they  find  there  taught,  and  to  act  conscien- 
tiously !)cfoie  God,  as  those  who  expect  to  give  account 
of  themselves  to  God  ;  and  to  give  their  brethren  the  same 
liberty  which  they  assume  to  themselves. 

"  In  this  state  of  darkness  and  doubt,  entire  uniformity 
af  sentiments  is  not  to  be  expected.  Christians  should 
bear  v/ith  one  another,  looking  forward  to  the  world  of 
jight,  where  they  wiJl  doubtkss  sec  eye  to  eye,  and  rejoice 


^3 

together  in  the  presence  of  their  God  and  Redeemer.  It 
is  gratifying  to  this  Council  to  find,  that  this  church  and 
society  have  long  been  blessed  with  peace  and  unity  to  an 
uncommon  degree.  They  lament  any  interruption  of 
these  blessings  at  present ;  but  rejoice  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ference now  apparent  among  them,  except  a  difference  of 
opinion  respecting  one  mysterious  article  of  faith,  which 
hath  divided  the  church  for  many  centuries.  It  is  our 
hope  and  prayer  to  God  for  them,  that  this  disagreement 
may  not  continue  to  cause  divisions,  but  that  they  mav 
love  as  brethren,  and  bear  with  one  another  as  becomes 
brethren  in  the  Lord. 

*'  The  preceding  passed  unanimously  as  the  Result  of 
the  Council,  and  is  witnessed  by  each  of  us  subscribing 
the  same,  JOSEPH  SUMNER, 

ANDREW  LEE, 
ARIEL  WILLIAMS, 
THOMAS  W.  WARD, 
NATHAN  LORD, 
AARON  TUFTS." 

Immediately  upon  the  publishing  of  the  Result,  the  ma? 
jor  part  of  the  church  declared,  by  vote,  their  approbation. 
Several  members,  that  were  opposed  to  Mr.  W.'s  minis- 
try, though  they  were  solicitous  to  call  tlie  Council  to  ad- 
vise, manifested,  by  their  vote,  that  they  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  Result.* 

A  little  more  than  a  month  after,  several  brethren  made 
it  manifest  by  a  written  communication,  that  they  could 
not  commune  with  the  junior  pastor  and  brethren  of  the 
church. 

*'  To  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson',  Junior  Pastor^  and  to 

the  Brethren  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Brooklyn. 

"  We,  who  are  members  of  said  church,  having  our 

minds  impressed  with  a  sense  of  the  present  unhappy  state. 

both  of  the  church  and  society  in  this  place,  have  thought 

•  It  soon  appeared,  that  a  Result  formed  upon  pacifick  and  liberal  principles,  and 
inculcating  a  spirit  of  mutual  foibearance  and  condescension,  the  duty  of  seaiching 
the  jcripcures,  and  ths  right  of  private  judgment  and  free  inquiry,  was  by  no  means 
acceptable  to  leveral  memberj  of  the  church.  Peace,  upon  any  principle  '.hat  would 
allow  to  their  pastor  and  olherj  an  equal  right  of  iaterpreting  the  scriptures  for  the.in- 
selves,  and  of  occasionally  avowing  their  opinions,  wa«  no  peace  for  tktm  woiSh  poj- 
sessing. 

4 


26 

it  our  indispensable  duty  to  address  you  on  the  subjectr 
Having  a  desire  to  follow  the  things  that  make  for  peacey 
we  have  endeavoured  carefully  to  examine  ourselves,  and 
search  alter  the  path  of  duty.  We  are  constrained  to  say, 
that  we  think  it  our  duty  to  content  ourselves  at  present 
■with  a  quiet  and  peaceable  retirement ;  for  how  can  we 
commune  together  with  such  discordant  sentiments,  views 
and  feeMngs  ?*  It  is  our  earnest  desire  and  prayer  to 
God,  that  the  great  Shepherd  would  pour  out  his  spirit 
upon  us,  ministers  and  people,  that  we  might  be  led  to  a- 
dopt  such  measures  as  shall  be  for  the  glory  of  God^  and 
the  good  of  his  church  and  people  in  this  place. 

Daniel  Tyler,  David  Prince, 

Joseph  Scarborough^      Joel  Scarborough^ 
Moses  Clark,  Benjaniin  Pierce^ 

Jezaniah  Sumner,  Delano  Pierce^ 

William  Bavretty  Samuel  Butts.\ 

«^'//m'10,,  181(>." 

*  By  this  exampis,  we  leafo  the  method  of  withdiawing  from  a  chareh,  wSien  we 
ISave  a  minister  that  wc  are  unwilling  to  hear. 

In  the  first  place,  if  he  does  not  preach  what  we  beHeve  to  be  the  truth,  we  are  not 
under  obligation  to  take  the  steps  pointed  out  in  the  New  Testament,  to  convince  and 
reclaim  him  ;  but  are  at  liberty  to  excite  as  much  opposition  to  his  ministry  as  we  can, 
with  the  hope  that  the  opposition  we  excite  may  induce  him  to  ask.  a  dismission. 

Secondly,  if  he  should  not  zsk  a  dismission,  but  propose  to  join  us  in  calling  a  Mu- 
tual Council  to  give  their  advice,  and  to  heal  and  terminate  all  dilHculties,  we 
v/ill  thank  him  for  his  proposal,  and  most  cordially  unite  with  him  in  calling  a 
Council  to  advise  us  to  peace.  At  the  same  time,  wc  will  so  manage  the  business  be- 
fore the  Council,  as,  if  possible,  to  procure  a  Result  in  favour  of  his  dismission. 

Thirdly,  if  the  advice  of  the  Council  should  not  accord  with  our  opinions  and  feel- 
ings, and  a  majority  of  the  church  should  be  disposed  to  conform  to  it,  still  we  arc 
not  to  consider  the  Result  of  an  advisory  Council,  or  the  voice  of  the  church,  as  a  nec.» 
essary  rule  for  us.  We  think  it  best,  as  occasion  requires,  to  be  governed  by  a  rule  of 
oar  oam. 

Fourthly,  aa  oui  minister  has  neither  asked  a  dismission  on  account  of  our  dissatis> 
faction,  nor  the  Council  artvtsed  to  it,  nor  the  chureti  taken  measures  for  its  accom- 
jilishnient,  we  think  it  our  duly,  from  a  desire  of  peace,  after  a  careful  self-examina- 
tion, to  content  ourselves  with  a  quHt  and  peaceaHe  retirement.  Though  our  covenant 
engagements  rfq.uire  us  to  watch  over  our  minister  and  our  brethren,  and  to  haveacar« 
for  their  spiritual  and  immortal  interest;  and  though  we  are  expressly  informed,  that 
if  we  convert  a  brother  who  has  cried  from  the  truth,  we  shall  save  a  soul  from  death, 
and  shall  hide  a  multitude  of  sins  ;  yet  the  efScacy  of  the  means  which  God  has  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose,  we  consider  extremely  uncertain  :  It  is  not  therefore  expe- 
dient to  put  forth  any  exertion  to  reclaim  our  minister  or  our  brethren.  After  in- 
forming them,  that  their  sentiments,  views,  and  feelings,  are  such  that  we  cannot  with 
a  good  conscience  commune  with  them,  we,  for  the  present,  leaving  them  to  them- 
selves, and  praying  that  something  may  be  clone  for  the  honour  of  God,  and  the  good 
of  his  church,  quietly  and  peiiceahly  retire.  We  do  not  think  it  proper  to  walk  with  the 
church  of  which  we  arc  members  "id  all  ways  of  holy  commuuion  and  fellowfhip," 
according  to  our  covenant ;  but  we  will  do  all  the  good  we  can,  in  convincing  the 
people,  both  at  hom"*  and  abroad,  of  the  errouis  of  our  ministei,  and  of  the  foUy  of 
those  that  adhere  to  him,  peauably  in  a  private  way. 

+  After  receiving  'his  communication,  Mr.  W.  before  the  next  communion,  visited 
the  bitthrcn  who  subscribed  it.     Two  of  them  declared  to  him  expressly  in  conveisjt- 


27 

Two  sacramental  occasions  were  observed,  and  none  c' 
the  above  members  were  present. 

As  they  closed  their  communication  with  an  earnest  de- 
sire that  suitable  measures  might  be  adopted  for  the  hon- 
our o."  God,  and  the  good  of  the  church  and  people  in 
Brook,;'n,  it  was  reasonably  expected  that  they  would  soon 
propose  some  measures  adapted  to  promote  an  object  so 
desirable. 

Making  no  proposals  whatever,  and  continuing  to  sepa- 
rate themselves  from  the  communion,  the  junior  pastor 
thought  it  best  to  make  propositions  to  the  church,  em- 
bracing particular  points  of  difference,  and  affording  a  full 
opportunity  for  all  complaints  and  differences  to  be  con- 
sidered and  finally  determined  by  a  mutual  and  impartial 
Council, 

PROPOSITIONS  to  the  Congregational  Church  in  Brooklyn ;  intend- 
ed,  if  approved  by  them,  to  be  laid  before  the  Society,  for  their 
concurrence,  as  far  as  it  might  be  proper  for  the  Society  to  act  up- 
on them,  in  connexion  with  the  Church. 

**  To  the  Brethren  of  the  Congregational  Church  in  Brook- 

iyn. 
*'  Having  contemplated  the  situation  of  this  church  and 
people  in  consequence  of  divisions,   occasioned  by  my 
change  of  sentiments,*  made  known  to  the  church,  at  their 

tion,  that,  thoagh  they  had  signed  the  communication,  they  had  not  fully  made  up 
their  minds  to  withdraw  from  communion  ;  and  that  when  they  signed  it,  it  was  un- 
derstood that  they  were  at  liberty  to  attend  the  communion,  if  they  pleased.  But  they 
never  attended.     Their  brethren,  it  is  probable,  convinced  them  that  it  was  not  best. 

I  cannot  but  observe  here,  that  one  of  the  number  that  withdrew  had  not  been  able  to 
attendpublick  worship  or  communion  for  sometime,on  account  of  sickness;  and  it  wat 
not  expected  by  many  that  he  would  ever  be  able  to  attend  again,  Mt.W.  had  frequent- 
ly visited  him  in  his  sickness;  but  he  had  never  conversed  with  Mr.  W.  upon  his  change 
of  sentiments,  nor  could  he  know  any  thing  of  his  opinions  but  from  report*  WhaS 
was  most  remarkable,  very  soon  after  he  withdrew,  he  desired  Mr.  W.  to  visit  him, 
and  asked  him  to  pray  with  him,  as  readily  as  he  had  been  accustomed  t»  do  before; 
and  there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  believe,  that  he  would  have  signed  the  commonica- 
tion,  had  he  not,  in  his  feeble  situation,  been  particularly  persuaded  by  his  good  breth- 
ren that  visited  him  and  conversed  with  him  upon  the  subject. — —The  number  that 
withdrew  was  about  a  third  p«rt  of  the  brethren  of  the  church. 

*  At  the  meeting  when  this  communication  was  made  to  the  church,  an  opposer  of 
Mr.  W.'i  ministry  repeatedly  mentioned,  with  much  apparent  satisfaction,  that  Mr. 
W.  acknowhdgid  kimse/f  the  occasion  of  the  divisions  that  existed  in  the  church  and  so- 
ciety, as  if  he  had  been  the  blameabU  or  criminal  cause  of  those  divisions.  It  was  cus- 
tomary with  certain  individuals  at  that  time,  and  has  been  during  the  controversy,  to 
place  all  the  sin  of  contention  and  division  at  the  door  of  Mr.  W.  Mr.  W.  never,  as 
I  recollect,  took  it  upon  him  to  assert  his  guilt  or  innocence  in  the  case;  for  he  never 
supposed  that  his  assertion  would  prove  him  cilhcr  inpocent  or  guilty. 


28 

request,  at  a  church  meeting  last  February  ;  having  con- 
bidered  the  continuance  and  progress  of  difficulties  among 
us  ;  and  having  long  expected  that  the  brethren  who  were 
disaffected  at  my  change  of  sentiments,  and  my  ministry, 
would  ingenuously  and  candidly  forward  some  regular 
complaint  against  me,  your  junior  pastor  ;  or  some  propo- 
sitions for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  difficulties,  or  for  an 
equitable,  peaceable,  and,  as  far  as  circumstances  would 
admit,  honourable  dissolution  of  my  pastoral  connexion 
with  this  church  ;  and  as  no  propositions  of  this  kind  have 
been  made,  nor  any  such  proceeding  adopted,  (which  I 
thought  reasonable  to  be  expected,)  but  a  different  course 
pursued,  such  as  openly  and  decidedly  to  withdraw  from 
our  communion,  at  least  for  a  time,  without  consulting 
our  opinion  and  feelings  upon  a  matter  of  such  impor- 
tance ;  I  have  thought  proper  to  propose  several  things  for 
your  consideration. 

*'  1.  Will  you  agree  to  adopt  proper  measures  for  as- 
certaining the  minds  and  feelings  of  this  church  and  peo- 
ple wit]i  respect  to  ray  dismission ;  whether,  all  circum- 

That  his  change  of  sentiments  has  been  the  occasion  o?  divisiooi  in  Brooklyn,  is  a 
fact  which  he  has  uniformiy  been  disposed  to  admit,  and  of  which  he  is  perfectly 
willing  that  his  enemies  (if  he  has  any)  should  avail  themselves  as  much  as  they  please. 
He  has  not  yet  discernment  enough  to  know,  that  simply  to  be  the  occasion  of  any  event, 
as  happy  oi  calamitous  in  its  effects,  is  a  certain  prooj  of  innocence  or  guilt.  The  con- 
duct of  Judas  in  betraying  Jesus,  and  of  the  Jews  in  crucifying  him,  was  an  occasion 
of  the  happiest  effects  to  mankind;  but  Christians  have  never  supposed  Judas  or  the 
Jews  to  have  been  iooocent  in  thus  being  the  occasion  of  so  great  good  tj  the  world. 

The  preaching  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  in  Judea,  and  of  his  apostles  in  different 
parts  of  Asia  and  Europe,  occaiioned,  \n  mzny  places,  a  most  important  change  in  the 
leligion,  customs  and  manners  of  the  people,  and  also  very  serious  divisions  and  per- 
secutions ;  but  Christians  have  never  heen  disposed  to  fix  upon  Christ,  or  his  apostles, 
the  imputation  ot  guilt,  in  being  the  occasion  of  such  divisions. 

I  notice  these  instances  merely  to  show,  that  the  conduct  of  an  individual  may  be 
the  occasion  of  good  or  ill  effects,  without  furnishing  any  proof  of  his  innocence  or 
guilt.  Indeed  the  conduct  of  a  person  is,  sometimes,  innocently  the  occasion  of  much 
evil,  and  crimiaaily  the  occasion  of  much  good. 

It  is  proper  here  to  state,  that  Mr.  W.  has  often  observed,  publickly  and  privately, 
that  he  was  willing  the  church  and  society  in  Brooklyn  should  enjoy  their  opinions 
Upon  the  Trinity,  undisturbed  by  any  efforts  on  his  part  to  the  contrary,  provided 
they  would  grant  hia  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  his  opinions,  without  endeavouring 
to  bring  him  into  reproach  for  his  supposed  errours. 

While  patiicuUr  pers&ns  were  diligently  employed  in  endeavouring  to  produce  un- 
easiness and  disaffection  in  the  minds  ot  others,  on  account  of  his  change  of  sentiments, 
he  always  considered  himself  at  liberty  to  declare  his  views  and  give  his  reasons  occa- 
sionally, both  publickly  and  privately.  From  the  time  he  altered  his  opinions,  he  had  _ 
seldom  introduced  his  peculiar  sentimen's  into  his  publick  discourses,  or  conversed 
upon  them  privately,  except  when  the  subject  was  introduced  bv  others,  or  circum- 
stances lequired  an  apoiogy  for  opinions  that  were  supposed  to  be  dangerous  ;  and  he 
never  felt  nor  manifested  the  least  reluctances  in  communing  with  his  Tiinitarian  breih- 
len,  but,  on  the  contrary,  uniformly  dicUrcd  his  dispositioa  and  leadiaeg}  to  coiC'. 
$aune  witii  theni|  on  all  gscatlons. 


29 

stances  considered,  tliey  wish,  or  think  it  best,  or  not,  that 
my  ministerial  relation  to  this  religious  society  should  be 
dissolved  ?* 

*'  2.  Will  you  unite  with  me  in  calling  a  mutual  and 
impartial  Council,  to  determine,  from  a  full  representation 
and  view  of  our  situation,  whether  it  is  proper  and  best, 
that  I  should  be  dismissed  from  my  relation  to  you  as  a 
Christian  minister ;  with  this  condition,  nevertheless,  that 
such  a  Council  shall  give  their  opinion  with  respect  to  sev- 
eral things  to  be  hereafter  noted ;  to  the  correctness  of 
which  opinion,  both  with  respect  to  these  things,  and  the 
event  of  my  dismission,  all  concerned,  as  far  as  it  respects 
their  conduct,  shall  subscribe  and  be  satisfied  ?t 

"  I  will  now  note  the  several  things  above  referred  to. 

"  1.  That  it  be  submitted  to  the  opinion  of  the  Council, 
whether  it  was  proper,  that  the  vote  of  the  church,  Febru- 
ary 16th,  viz.  *  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  an  essential 
or  fundamental  doctrine' — should  pass  and  be  continued, 
considering  the  circumstances  attending  it,  without  their 
explaining,  when  repeatedly  called  upon,  whether  it  was 
meant,  or  not,  to  be  considered,  in  its  application,  as  essen- 
tial to  Christian  fellowship,  or  communion  at  the  Lord's 
table. 

*^  2.    That  it  be  submitted  to  the  Council,  whether  it 
was  a  suitable  and  justifiable  conduct  towards  a  pastor,  for 
the  church  (or,  more  properly,  their  committee)  to  make 
the  statement  which  they  did,  with  the  circumstances  ac-. 
companying  it,  before  the  Council  convened  the  1st  of 

*  Mr.  W,  wished  to  ascertain  what  proportion  of  the  church  ar>d  society  were  in  fa- 
vour of  his  dismission,  lliat  when  the  Council  should  take  up  the  subject,  they  might 
be  furnished  with  necessary  information  to  form  a  proper  Result. 

+  Some  were  solicitous  to  know  what  was  meant  by  subscribing  and  being  lat'sfied. 
Mr.  W.  explained,  and  was  willing  lo  h.<vc  his  explanation  reduced  to  writing.  His 
meaning  was,  that  all  should  agree  to  .:  .t  m  in  practice  to  ihe  judgment  of  tho 
Council,  whatever  might  be  rheir  private  opinions  and  feelings.  If  the  Council 
•hould  judge  it  expedient  thai  Mr.  W.  b^  dismissed,  all  th^t  wished  his  continuance 
were  to  make  no  difficulty,  but  be  satisfied  with  ihc  decision.  If  the  Council  should 
result  in  favour  of  his  continuance,  all  who  wjihcd  his  dismission  were  to  cease  their 
opposition  upun  such  terms  as  the  Council  should  di'ect.  Bat  they  say,  If  the  Coun- 
cil should  not  dismiss  Mr.  W.  what  .hall  we  do  ?  Must  we  commune  with  him  m 
his  errour?  The  answer  was,  It  the  Council  approve  of  your  withdrawmg  from 
conamunion,  you  are  at  liberty  to  remain  in  your  retirement.  If  they  consider  you 
irregular  in  witudrawing,  vou  must  return  and  commune  in  peace,  or  may  take  a  reg- 
ular dismission,  and  connect  yourselves  with  those  churches  where  you  can  enjoy 
communion  with  a  good  conscience.  This  was  the  explanation.  Mr.  W.  also  stated, 
that  they  might  bring  any  complaint  against  him  before  the  Couacil,  that  they  wished, 
sfid  that  the  CoancU  should  deem  legaUr  aad  proper. 


30 

May  "last,  and  requested  by  mutual  agreement  (as  will  be 
seen  by  the  church  records  and  letters  missive]  to  advise 
us  in  our  situation. 

*'  3.  That  it  be  submitted  to  the  Council,  whether  the 
conduct  of  the  aggrieved  brethren,  in  unitedly  and  openly 
withdrawing  or  retiring  from  our  communion,  as  they  did, 
was  correct  and  justifiable,  according  to  the  terms  of  our 
covenant,  and  the  rules  of  the  gospel. 

*'  4.  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Council  to  determine, 
whether,  in  the  event  of  my  dismission,  (should  that  take 
place,)  it  is  equitable  and  reasonable,  or  not,  in  view  of  all 
circumstances,  that  some  pecuniary  consideration,  or  what 
is  in  some  way  equivalent,  should  be  made  to  me  for  the 
prol^able  disadvantages  that  I  may  sustain,  as  to  property, 
in  consequence  of  such  an  event ;  and  also  to  determine, 
if  anv  consideration  be  judged  reasonable,  what,  or  how 
much  it  shall  be.  LUTHER  WILLSON. 

"  Brooklyn,  Sept,  3,  1816." 

At  a  church  meeting,  Sept.  3,  1816 — The  above  prop- 
ositions were  taken  into  consideration  by  the  church. — 
There  was  much  conversation  :  no  vote  passed,  but  to  ad- 
journ.    The  meeting  was  adjourned. 

At  the  adjourned  meeting,  Sept.  14th — The  members 
of  the  church  who  styled  themselves  the  aggrieved,  pre- 
sented a  written  communication  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson, 
junior  pastor,  and  to  the  brethren  of  the  church.  After 
considerable  discussion  and  remark  upon  the  communica- 
tion, and  the  propositions  to  which  it  referred,  the  meeting 
by  vote  of  the  church  was  dissolved. 

[The  communication  of  the  aggrieved  brethren  was  as 
follows:] 

"  To  the  Rev,  Luther  Willson,  Junior  Pastor  of  the 
Congregational  Church  in  Brooklyn,  and  said  Church. 

"  We,  the  members  of  said  church,  who  have  been  ag- 
grieved by  Mr.  Willson's  change  of  sentiments,  are  happy 
to  find  a  door  opened  by  Mr.  Willson's  communication  to 
the  church,  and  a  method  pointed  out,  which,  if  wisely 
pursued,  will,  we  think,  be  the  means  of  restoring  peace 
and  harmony  to  this  church  and  people  ;  and  we  fully  a- 
gree  with  Mr.  Willson,  that  proper  measures  ought  to  be 


^opted  for  ascertaining  the  minds  and  feelings  of  this 
church  and  people  in  respect  to  his  dismission.  And  we 
do  think  the  first  step  to  be  taken  is,  to  see  whether  the 
church  do  approve  or  disapprove  of  Mr.  Willson's  senti- 
ments ;  and,  secondly,  to  see  whether  the  church  do  or  do 
not  wish  the  pastoral  relation  to  be  dissolved.  And,  third- 
ly, we  are  willing,  and  think  it  will  be  for  the  peace  of  the 
society,  and  a  proper  measure,  to  refer  it  over  to  them  to 
act  upon  in  like  manner.  And,  should  it  then  become 
necessary,  we  agree,  fourthly,  with  Mr,  Wilkon,  in  his 
second  proposition,  to  call  in  a  Mutual  Council  to  hear  and 
determhie  on  all  matters  of  controversy  existing  betweea 
us,  contained  in  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson's  communica- 
tion of  the  3d  instant. 

Dariiel  Tyler,  Moses  Clark, 

Joseph  Scarboroug-k,        TFilliam  Barrett, 
Benjamin  Pierce,  Joel  Scarborough, 

Delano  Peirce,  David  Prince, 

Jezaniah  Sumner, 

*' Brooklyn,  Sept.  14,  1816.'* 

This  communication  of  the  aggrieved,  and  the  other,  of 
an  earlier  date,  June  10th,  Mr.  Willson,  the  junior  pastor, 
and  most  of  the  brethren  of  the  church,  after  due  consulta-. 
tion,  answered  as  follows  : 

"  To  the  aggrieved  Brethren  of  the  Congregational  Church 
in  Brooklyn,  viz.  Daniel  Tyler,  Joseph  Scarborough, 
Moses  Clark,  Jezaniah  Sumner,  William  Barrett,  Da- 
vid Prince,  Joel  Scarborough,  Benjamin  Pierce,  Delano 
Pierce, 

*'  We,  the  junior  pastor,  and  brethren  of  said  church;;, 
have  thought  it  proper  to  furnish  an  answer  to  your  two 
written  communications,  made  to  us  at  different  times — = 
the  first,  dated  June  10th,  1816,  and  the  other,  the  14th  of 
September. 

"  In  your  first  communication  you  inform  us,  that  'your 
minds  being  impressed  with  a  sense  of  the  present  unhap- 
py situation  both  of  the  church  and  society  in  this  place, 
you  thought  it  your  indispensable  duty  to  address  us  on 
the  subject ;'  and  you  address  ui  as  follow^ :  '  Having  h 


desire  to  follow  the  things  that  make  for  peace,  we  have 
endeavoured  carefully  to  examine  ourselves,  and  search 
after  the  path  of  duty.  We  are  constrained  to  say,  that 
we  think  it  our  duty  to  content  ourselves,  at  present,  with 
a  quiet  and  peaceable  retirement ;  for  how  can  we  com- 
mune together  with  such  discordant  sentiments,  views  and 
feeliuQ^s  ?  It  is  our  earnest  desire  and  prayer  to  God,  that 
the  Great  Shepherd  v/ould  pour  out  his  spirit  upon  us, 
ministers  and  people,  that  we  might  be  led  to  adopt  such 
measures  as  shall  be  for  t)ie  glory  of  God,  and  the  good  of 
his  church  and  people  in  this  place,* 

"  from  what  is  above  written,  it  appears^  that  you  feel 
a  very  serious  concern  in  view  of  difficulties  that  exist  in 
this  church  and  society ;  that  you  are  desirous  to  follow 
the  things  that  make  for  peace ;  and  that,  after  a  careful 
self-examination,  and  a  deliberate  inquiry  for  the  path  of 
duty,  you  are  constrained  to  forsake  our  holy  and  sacra- 
mental communion. 

"  As  to  the  course  you  have  adopted,  In  withdrawing 
from  us,  we  think  you  have  misjudged.  We  think  it  evi- 
dently inconsistent  with  those  solemn  covenant  engage- 
ments by  which  all  the  members  of  this  church  of  Christ 
have  *  promised,  by  the  help  of  his  Spirit,  to  walk  with 
him  and  his  church  in  all  ways  of  holy  communion  and 
fellowship,  and  in  due  observance  of  all  his  ordinances,  ac- 
cording to  his  will  as  revealed  in  his  word.' 

"When  you  speak  of  'discordant  sentiments,  views 
and  feelings,'  as  the  occasion  of  your  *  quiet  and  peaceable 
retirement,'  we  cannot  suppose,  that,  by  such  a  proceed- 
ing, you  n^ean  to  criminate  yourselves,  or  to  declare  to  us, 
and  to  the  world,  your  own  faults.  You  cannot  therefore 
bi;t  be  sensible,  that  your  communication,  and  practice  in 
conformity  to  it,  implicitly  and  ptiblickly  fix  upon  us,  a 
weighty  and  indiscriminate  censure  ;  and  the  censure  falls 
upon  us,  individually  and  collectively. 

"  The  step  that  you  have  taken  in  withdrawing  from  us, 
according  to  our  view  of  it,  seems  to  declare  to  us,  and  to 
the  world,  that  you  cannot,  with  a  good  conscience,  com- 
Biune  with  us  us  persons  actuated  by  Christian  principles 
and  feelings. 

"  We  cannot,  however,  think,  nor  would  we  believe, 
that  your  views  and  feelings  with  respect  to  us,  are  really 


S3 

such  as  the  proceeding  you  have  adopted  seems  to  declare. 
And  even  suppose,  (what,  however,  we  do  not  admit  to 
hav^e  been  the  fact,)  that  our  sentiments  were  so  erroneous, 
and  our  feelings  and  conduct  such,  as  to  render  our  Chris- 
tian character  unworthy  of  the  charitable  opinion  of  our 
brethren  ;  still  we  do  not  think  it  agreeable  to  the  order 
and  rules  of  the  Christian  church,  that  any  of  them  should 
actually  withdraw  from  us,  without  previously  making 
knov/n  to  us  their  grievance,  with  a  desire  to  have  it  re- 
moved, and  peace  restored  ;  and  without  previously  using 
their  best  endeavours  to  point  out  and  correct  our  errone- 
ous opinions,  and  to  reclaim  us  from  our  faults. 

*'  If  any  of  us  have  fallen  into  dangerous  errour,  or  have 
in  any  way  become  disorderly,  we  deem  it  a  sacred  duty 
incumbent  upon  our  brethren,  and  enforced  by  every  prin- 
ciple of  Christian  tenderness  and  concern  for  our  salvation, 
to  employ  their  most  serious  eff-rts,  with  the  hope  of 
God's  blessing,  in  endeavouring  to  convince  us  of  our  er- 
rours,  and  to  restore  us  from  our  wanderings,  before  they 
vi^ithdraw  from  our  communion,  or  in  any  way  declare  us 
unworthy  of  their  fellowship. 

"  Impressed  with  these  sentiments  in  view  of  the  case 
before  us,  in  which  you  and  we  are  all  concerned  ;  having 
a  desire  to  follow  the  things  that  make  for  peace,  and 
wherewith  one  may  edify  another ;  and  praying  that  a  spir- 
it of  truth,  humility,  and  Christian  benevolence,  may  inliu- 
ence  the  hearts  and  cojiduct  of  iis  all,  we  earnestly  entreat 
you  to  return  to  our  communion,  in  hope  that  we  may 
walk  together  *  as  the  children  of  God,  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint  heirs  with  Christ,  if  so  be  that  we  suffer  with  him, 
that"  we  may  also  be  glorified  together.'  If  you  cannot  be 
persuaded  to  return  to  our  comnmnion  by  our  request  and 
exhortation,  as  contained  in  this  letter,  we  think  it  the  best 
and  most  peaceable  measure,  and  do  now  therefore  pro- 
pose to  you,  to  refer  this  matter  of  difference  between  you 
and  us,  a  matter  of  so  much  practical  importance  to  the 
interest  and  tranquillity  of  this  church,  to  a  Mutual  Coun- 
cil, agreeably  to  the  third  proposition  of  the  junior  pastor, 
contained  in  his  communication  to  the  church  on  the  3d 
of  September.  And  we  also  think  it  proper  and  necessa- 
ry, that  we  all  agree  to  conform,  in  practice,  to  the  decis-- 
ian  of  such  a  Council. 

5 


34 

"Our  cittention  is  now  called  to  your  second  comTnonj-'' 
cation,  whidi  has  respect  to  several  propositions,  which 
were  comniiinicated  to  the  church  by  the  junior  pastor  foe 
their  approbation  and  concurrence,  and  which  relate  to  the 
calling  of  a  Mutual  Council,  to  determine,  from  a  full 
view  of  our  situation,  the  propriety  of  his  dismission  from 
his  pastoral  charge,  or  of  his  continuance  with  this  people. 
We  think  it  \vas  well  known  to  you,  when  the  above-men- 
tioned propositions  were  under  your  consideration,  both 
from  what  appeared  upon  the  face  of  them,  and  from  the 
remarks  of  tlie  junior  pastor  at  the  church  meeting  when 
they  were  presented,  that  his  object  in  making  them  was, 
to  agree  upon  a  Council,-  which  should  give  their  opinion 
upon  all'  important  matters  of  difference  existing  in  the 
church,  and  between  the  churcii,  or  the  aggrieved  breth- 
ren,, and  tlie  said  pastor  ;  and  which  should  ultimately  de- 
•cide  with  respect  to  his  dismission.  And  we  think  it  was 
well  understood  by  you,  when  you  made  your  communi- 
catioiv,  that  the  object  of  the  junior  pastor^  in  his  first 
proposition,,  was,  that  the  church  should  agree  with  him, 
as  far  as  they  were  capable  of  acting  in  the  case,  in  adopt- 
ing, a  proper  method  for  ascertainii"ig  the  minds  and  feel- 
ings of  this  church  and  society  with  respect  to  dissolving; 
his  pastoral  relation  ;  in  order  that  a  Council,  when  called 
to  judge  of  our  affairs,  from  knowing  the  sense  of  this  peo- 
ple in  regard  to  his  ministerial  character,  might  be  able  to 
judge  correctly,,  as-  far  as  that  knowledge  should  be  impor- 
tant, of  the  propriety  of  his  dismission, 

[The  junior  pastor  thouglit  it  proper  to  refer  the  whole 
of  his  propositions  relating  to  both  church  and  society,, 
first,  to  tlie  church,  for  their  approbation,  hoping  that  they 
would  approve  of  them,  and  then  unite  with  him  in  refer- 
ring them  to  the  society,  for  them  to  act  upon,  as.  far  as 
they  were  concerned,  and  their  interest  was  connected  Avith 
the  church*  This  method  of  bringing  the  matter  forward, 
(hough  he  may  have  misjudged,  he  thought  most  likely  to 
give  general  satisf^^ction,  and  believed  it  would  be  most 
respectful  and  acce]>table  to  the  church.] 

"  It  does  not  apjjear  from  your  communication  (and  ob^ 
scrvcitions  upon  it  at  the  last  churcli  meeting)  that  you  arc 
willing  to  express  your  minds  in  regard  to  calling  a  Coun- 
eil  to  terminate  the  divisions  among  us,  until  particular 


35 

sqirestions  which  you  proposed,  relative  to  the  junior  pas- 
■tor's  dismission,  are  determined  by  votes  of  the  church 
^nd  society  ;  the  decision  of  which  questions,  according  to 
't/our  view  of  the  case,  may,  or  may  not,  render  a  Council 
necessary  ;  whereas,  in  our  view,  a  Council  is  indispensa- 
bly necessary,  from  what  we  already  know  of  our  situation, 
to  terminate  the  diiiicultics  in  the  church,  unless  our  divis- 
ions are  immediately  healed  among  ourselves ;  an  event 
exceedingly  desirable,  but  which  we  see  no  good  reason  to 
expect  at  present.  We  are  not  able  to  discover,  at  present, 
a  reasonable  prospect  of  peace  and  tranquillity  restored  to 
the  church  in  any  other  way,  than  by  referring  our  differ- 
ences to  the  advice  and  judgment  of  others.  We  therefore 
think  it  reasonable  and  best  to  adopt  the  propositions  of  the 
junior  pastor,  as  to  all  points  of  difference  that  they  contain, 
to  be  referred  to  a  Council  for  their  consideration  and  opin- 
ion ;  and  also  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  such  Council ; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  we  are  entirely  willing,  and  are 
ready  to  agree,  that  the  aggrieved,  and  all  concerned, 
should  refer  any  propositions  or  questions  that  they  may 
wish,  with  such  reasons  as  they  may  please  to  offer  in  sup- 
port of  them,  to  the  advice  and  judgment  of  said  Council; 
provided,  that  all  persons,  whose  characters  may  be  impli- 
cated or  impeached  by  such  questions  or  propositions,  may 
have  a  fair  and  full  oppoi-tunity  for  their  own  defence. 

"  And  we  are  farther  willing  that  the  communication  of 
the  junior  pastor  to  the  church  be  subject  to  any  correc- 
tions or  explanations  that  may  be  necessary,  without  mate- 
rially affecting  the  substance  ;  or  that  may  render  it  more 
acceptable,  and  better  adapted  to  the  object  in  view.  We 
cannot  but  think  that,  thus  far,  in  regard  to  your  second 
communication,  you  will  be  ready  to  meet  us,  as  to  all 
matters  of  difference  that  relate  to  the  church,  in  referring 
them  for  a  settlement  to  the  decision  of  the  Council  pro- 
posed ;  and  also  in  relerring  our  proceedings  as  a  church 
(as  far  as  it  may  be  necessary)  to  the  society  for  their  con- 
sideration and  concurrence. 

*'  We  now  offer  some  remarks  upon  the  method  you  pro- 
pose,  for  ascertaining  the  minds  and  feelings  of  this  church 
and  people  with  respect  to  the  dismission  of  the  junior  pastor. 

*'  The  method  you  propose,  in  reference  to  that  object, 
may  be  seen  from  what  follows,  as  it  is  expressed  in  your 
communication :   *  We  do  think  the  first  step  to  be  taken 


3t 

is,  to  see  whether  the  church  do  approve  or  disapprove  of 
Mr.  Willson's  sentiments ;  and,  secondly,  to  see  whether 
the  church  do  or  do  not  wish  the  pastoral  relation  to  be 
dissolved.  And,  thirdly,  we  are  <?villing,  and  think  it  will 
be  for  the  peace  of  the  society,  and  a  proper  measure,  to 
refer  it  over  to  them  to  act  upon  in  like  manner.'  From 
this  it  is  evident,  that  you  are  willing,  and  think  it  desira- 
ble, that  the  church  and  society  should  express  their  minds 
with  respect  to  the  junior  pastor's  dismission,-  by  two  votes 
to  determine  the  question^^l.  Do  they  approve  or  disap- 
prove  of  his  sentiments  ?  2.  Do  they  wish,  or  not,  his  pas- 
toral relation  to  be  dissolved  ?  And  it  does  not  appear 
that  you  are  willing  the  church  or  society  should  show 
their  minds  upon  the  question  of  dismission  in  any  other 
way.  Whether  you  consider  it  absolutely  indispensable 
that  this  question  should  be  acted  upon  and  decided  in  this 
manner,  rather  than  a  different  manner,  or  by  one  vote, 
which  would  decide  the  matter  at  once,  must  be  left  un- 
determined, until  you  make  Iv^own  to  us  your  opinion  up- 
on this  point.  For  ourselves,  we  can  see  no  important  or 
special  objection  to  putting  the  question  of  dismission  at 
once  to  the  church,  and  also  to  the  society,  (if  they  shall 
think  it  proper,)  to  each  in  their  distinct  capacity  of  acting 
upon  it,  agreeably  to  the  terms  of  the  junior  pastor's  first 
proposition,  <  whether,  all  circumstances  considered,  they 
wish,  or  think  it  best,  or  not,  that  his  ministerial  relation 
to  this  religious  society  should  be  dissolved,' 

"  As  to  the  terms  to  be  used  in  proposing  the  question, 
we  have  no  wish,  nor  is  it  proper  for  us,  to  be  particular  ; 
to  decide,  or  to  insist.  But  we  can  see  no  substantial 
reason  for  determining  it  by  two  votes  rather  than  one ; 
for  every  person  acting  upon  the  single  question,  Jbr  or 
against  the  junior  pastor's  dismission,  will  consider  with 
himself,  how  much  he  approves  or  disapproves  of  his 
religious  opinions;  and,  in  connexion  with  other  cir- 
cumstances, will  undoubtedly  give  that  consideration  all 
its  importance  before  he  acts.  It  ought  not,  however,  to 
be  here  omitted,  that  there  are  some  reasons,  in  our  view, 
why  the  first  question  contained  in  your  proposal,  the 
question  in  regard  to  approving  or  disapproving  of  Mr, 
Willson's  sentiments  seems  to  be  improper.  1.  It  seems 
to  be  improper,  inasmuch  as  it  makes  it  necessary  for  eve- 
ry person  who  acts  upon  it,  to  declare  to  the  world,  by  liis 


vote,  his  religious  opinion  upon  the  difficult  doctriHe  in 
dispute ;  and  he  must,  therefore,  in  consequence  of  his 
act,  be  held  up  to  publick  observation,  as  an  object  of  ap- 
probation or  censure,  according  to  the  different  sentiments 
and  feelings  of  different  sects.  We  cannot  suppose  that 
people,  in  general,  would  be  willing  to  have  their  religious 
opinions  brought  into  publick  view,  as  a  subject  of  specu- 
lation among  the  curious  and  inquisitive,  in  ihdt  way. 
And  should  such  a  proceeding  be  adopted,  we  are  inclined 
to  think  it  would  be  new  and  unprecedented.  2.  There 
is  another  objection  to  the  method  you  propose,  which 
we  think  more  worthy  of  consideration,  and  which  has  re- 
spect, particularly,  to  members  of  the  church.  Should 
any  members  of  the  church  be  in  agreement  with  the 
junior  pastor  as  to  the  doctrine,  which  is  considered  by- 
some  an  occasion  of  offence,  you  see  at  once,  that  such 
members  must  be  prevented  from  acting  upon  the  ques- 
tion, when  it  is  put  to  the  brethren — Do  you  approve  or 
disapprove  of  Mr.  Willson's  sentiments  ?  or  otherwise,  by- 
expressing  theirapprobation  of  his  opinions,  they  are  imme- 
diately exposed  to  the  censure  and  discipline  of  the  church, 
(not,  in  our  opinion,  by  the  authority  of  the  church  cove- 
nant, but  by  a  vote  of  the  church,  last  February,  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.)  Should  these  members  (if  there 
be  any  such)  openly  approve  of  Mr.  Willson's  sentiments, 
they  will  be  liable  to  be  called  to  an  account  for  their  er- 
rours,  to  be  charged  with  heresy,  and,  if  not  reclaimed,  to 
be  excommunicated  from  the  church.  These,  we  think, 
are  important  reasons  against  adopting  the  method  you 
propose.  We  hope  you  will  agree  with  us,  as  we  are  con- 
cerned for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  this  religious  society, 
in  calling  a  Council  upon  the  terms  proposed ;  and  in  sub- 
mitting, in  point  of  practice,  to  the  authority  of  their  decision. 
Luther  JVillson,  Aaro7i  Davison^ 

Roger  W.  Williams^      Simeen  Butts^ 
John  Parish^  Philip  Scarborough^ 

John  TFilliamSy  Nathaniel  Williams^ 

Daniel  Davison^  Wyllis  Copelandy 

Joseph  DavisoHy  Perrin  Scarborough^ 

Benjamin  Gilbert^         John  G,  Dabney^ 
William  Trescotty  George  Lincoln, 

''Brooklyn,  Sept.  21,  1816.'*. 


*<  Brooklyn,  September  25,  1816, 

**  7b  the  aggrieved  Brethren  of  the  Congregational  Church 
in  Brooklyn. 

**  I  am  disposed  to  offer  you  a  few  particulars  in  connex- 
ion with  what  is  communicated  by  me  and  several  brethren 
of  the  church,  I  think  I  am  willing  to  make  a  personal 
sacrifice  of  interest  and  feelings,  from  a  regard  to  the  wel- 
fare of  this  church  and  society.  I  am  ready,  for  myself, 
to  strike  out  the  last  of  my  propositions,  the  one  relative  to 
a  pecuniary  consideration,  from  the  idea  that  that  proposi- 
tion, though  you  have  not  suggested  it,  may  possibly  have 
some  influence  upon  your  minds,  as  to  accepting  the  whole 
of  them.  I  am  willing  also  to  erase  the  first,  which  you 
were  anxious  to  have  struck  out  at  the  time  my  communi- 
cation wa^  made  ;  provided,  that  you  will  agree  to  all  the 
others.  As  I  agreed  to  erase  the  first,  when  the  matter  was 
conversed  upon  at  the  church  meeting,  so  I  am  willing  now 
to  agree,  if  you  choose  it,  that  either  or  both  of  them  should 
be  struck  out  on  the  above  condition,  together  with  the 
condition,  that  our  agreement  with  respect  to  a  Council  to 
determine  the  propriety  of  my  dismission,  (should  such  an 
agreement  take  place,)  be  referred  to  the  society  for  their 
consideration  and  concurrence  ;  or  for  them  to  act  upon, 
a^  they  shall  judge  proper.  And  if  there  is  any  doubt  in 
your  minds,  from  what  is  contained  in  my  propositions, 
whether  I  wish  the  Council  proposed,  to  have  power  given 
them  to  dissolve  my  pastoral  relation,  if  they  shall  think  it 
best  that  my  dismission  take  place ;  I  now  declare  to  you 
explicitly,  that  I  wish  the  Council  to  have  full  power  giv- 
en them  for  that  purpose,  provided  they  judge  it  proper 
and  best  that  I  be  dismissed. 

*'  I  would  farther  observe,  particularly^  (though  I  think 
it  manifestly  implied  in  the  joint  communication  of  me 
and  the  brethren,)  that  I  wish,  as  it  respects  myself,  and 
hope  it  is  understood  and  intended  by  all  concerned,  (if  a 
Council  be  called,)  that  the  aggrieved  should  have  an  equal 
voice  in  the  choice  of  a  Council ;  and  that  they  should 
make  a  full  representation  of  all  their  complaints,  as  far  as 
may  be  consistent,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Council,  with  or- 
der and  propriety. 

*'  I  have  noted  and  forwarded  these  particulars,  that, 
as  far  as  I  am  capable  of  considering  the  case,  I  might 


39 

remove  from  your  minds  every  plausible  or  imagmable' 
objection  to  the  Council  proposed  for  the  settlement  and 
^rmination  of  our  difficulties. 

*^  LUTHER  WILLSON." 

Nearly  two  weeks  after  these  communications,  a  church 
meeting  was  appointed,  with  the  expectation  of  receiving- 
an  answer  from  the  aggrieved  brethren,*  and  with  the  hope 
of  making  arrangements  for  a  Mutual  Council,  to  whose 
decision  all  concerned  would  practicall?/  conform.  But  in 
this  we  were  disappointed.  At  the  time  the  church  were 
to  meet,  the  aggrieved  brethren  appeared,  and  objected  to-^ 
the  meeting,  on  the  ground  that  no  member  of  the  church 
was  a  suitable  person  to  preside  as  moderator.  It  was  re- 
spectfully stated  by  Mr.  \V.  and  those  that  were  in  com- 
munion with  him,  that  they  would  agree  upon  either  of  the 
aggrieved  brethren  to  act  as  moderator.  They  had  no 
doubt  that  several  of  them  were  suitable  persons  to  preside 
on  the  occasion.  Some  of  them  were  named,  but  they 
would  not  consent.  Deacon  Scarborough,  an  ofScer  of  the 
church,  was  chosen  ;  and,  by  way  of  apology  for  refusing 
the  appointment,  he  was  so  ingenuous  as  seriously  to  ac- 
knowledge himself  a  parti/  man  /f  and,  for  that  reason, 
thought  it  improper  for  him  to  preside  at  the  meeting.  Ir^ 
consequence  of  the  determination  of  the  aggrieved  not  to- 
be  satisfied  with  any  individual  of  the  church  to  officiate  as 
moderator,  the  meeting  was  deferred,  and  a  neighbouring 
minister  was  agreed  upon  to  perform  a  duty,  for  which  no 
member  of  the  church  Avas  thought  qualified.  The  gen- 
tleman, being  specially  detained,  did  not  (as  was  expected) 
come  at  the  time.  The  meeting  was  still  deferred.  An- 
other  gentleman  was  agreed  on  as  moderator,  (named  by 
the  aggrieved,)  and  came  at  the  time  appointed,  agreeably 
to  request. 

*  The  aggrieved  brethren  made  no  reply  to  these  communications,  cither  verbally 
or  in  writing. 

+  It  hid  been  thought  by  many,  that  this  gentleman  had  been  much  under  the  influ- 
ence of  party  spirit  for  a  considerable  time  ;  but  he  never  was  so  frank  as  to  avow  it 
before.  A  party  nian  I  suppose  to  be  one  who  is  actuated  by  private  and  partial 
views  ;  who  has  more  of  worldly  wisdom,  than  of  "  wisdom  from  above,"  one  cha- 
racieristick  of  which  is,  zoitkout  partiality  ;  and  whose  virtues  as  a  Christian  c««ti«« 
principally  in  zeal  for  a  separate  and  purer  comnxwnion,  in  opposition  to  the  peace 
aad  untty  of  the  charch. 


40 

•^  At  a  church  meeting,  October  16th,  1816, 

Rev.  Erastus  Learned,  Moderator,  and 
Rev.  Luther  Willson,  Clerk, 

The  moderator  opened  the  meeting  with  prayer, 

"  After  attending  to  written  communications  from  the 
aggrieved  brethren  to  Mr.  Willson,  the  junior  pastor,  and 
the  brethren  of  the  church,  and  from  him  and  the  brethren 
of  the  church  to  the  aggrieved,  the  following  question  was 
put :  *  Will  this  church  now  proceed,  with  the  aggrieved 
brethren,  to  choose  a  Mutual  Council  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine upon  all  matters  of  difficulty  relative  to  the  connex- 
ion of  the  junior  pastor  of  this  church,  and  to  dissolve  his 
connexion  with  the  church,  if  said  Council  judge  it  expe- 
dient ;  and  to  give  their  advice  relative  to  ail  matters  of 
difficulty  in  the  church  V 
*'  Voted  in  the  negative.* 

"  Another  question  was  then  put :  *  Will  this  church 
now  proceed,  with  the  aggrieved  brethren,  to  choose  a 
Mutual  Council  to  hear  and  determine  upon  all  matters  of 
difficulty  relative  to  the  connexion  of  the  junior  pastor  of 
this  church  with  said  church,  provided  the  society  concur 
in  calling  said  Council ;  and  provided  said  Council,  on  a 
whole  view  of  the  subject,  judge  it  best  that  the  junior  pas- 
tor's pastoral  relation  should  be  dissolved,  that  they  dis- 
solve the  same ;  and  that  said  Council  should  take  up  all 
matters  stated  in  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson's  and  the 
members  of  the  church's  several  communications  to  the 
aggrieved,  which  communications  shall  be  the  basis  of  the 
articles  to  be  submitted  to  said  Council ;  and  all  other 
matters  which  the  aggi  ieved  wish  to  lay  before  said  Coun- 
cil, shall  also  be  attended  to  by  said  Council  V 

*'  Voted  in  the  affirmative. 

•There  were  two  material  objcctioiu  to  this  motion,  i.  In  contemplating  the  c 
vent  of  Mr.  W.'s  liismisiitoa,  it  contain-d  no  reference  to  the  society,  as  having  any 
interest  or  agency  in  calling  the  Council  And,  e,  as  to  difficultiei  in  the  church,  it 
made  provision  only  for  the  advice  of  a  Council,  without  requiring  the  parties  tar 
conform  to  tbetr  decjisicn.  The  church  had  already-  learnt  by  experience,  that  advice^ 
however  seasoiiable  and  useful,  was  nut  always  respected.  They  had  seen  that  indi- 
viduali,  who  were  anxious  to  be  advised  to  the  best  method  of  removing  difHcultie* 
and  restoring  peace,  were  sometimes  the  first  to  disregard  the  advice  that  was  given. 
The  church,  therefore,  had  no  expectation  that  difficulties  in  the  church  would  be  set- 
tied,  unless  the  parties  would  agree,  at  least  as  it  respected  practice,  to  wave  tbetr  pri- 
vate icterestj,  aod  C9mpJ/  with  flte  Re»uX 


41 

"  The  names  being  called  for,  they  were  taken,  and  were 
a*  ibllow  : 

la  the  af&rmattve.  la  the  negative. 

John  fVilliams,  Joseph  Davison, 

.Roger  IF.  fFilliainS)  Delano  Pierce^ 

Daniel  Davison,  Joseph  Scarborough^ 

Wyllis  Copeland,  Daniel  Tyler, 

Aaron  Davison,  William  Barrett, 

John  Parish,  Jezaniah  Simmer, 

Benjamin  Gilbert,  Moses  Clark, 

Philip  Scarborough,  PFilliam  Dabney, 
Perrin  Scarborough, 
Nathaniel  Williams, 

Simeon  Butts,  '*^"»"'- 

William  Trescott,  John  G.  Dabney, 
George  Lincoln, 

"  Voted,  that  the  meeting  be  dissolved.  It  was  accord- 
ingly dissolved. 

**  Attest,         L.  WILLSON,  Clerk:'"^ 

[The  aggrieved  brethren  voted  upon  each  question.J 

The  aggrieved  brethren  appeared  much  disappointed  at 
the  result  of  this  meeting.  But  they  had  no  plausible  or 
possible  ground  of  complaint ;  for,  so  far  as  the  business 
of  the  meeting  depended  upon  the  moderator,  they  had 
been  favoured  with  one  of  their  own  choice.f  They 
would  not,  however,  unite  with  the  church  in  calling  a 
Council  upon  the  terms  proposed.  Protesting  against  the 
conduct  of  the  church  in  offering  them  a  Mutual  Council 
upon  the  principles  contained  in  the  vote,  they  soon  enter- 
ed upon  measures  which  they  expected  would  be  effectual 
to  remove  Mr.  W.  from  his  ministerial  and  pastoral  office.j 

*  This  record  was  transmitted  to  Dr.  Whitney,  the  senior  pastor;  but  has  never 
been  put  upon  the  book  of  records.  Many  proceedings  of  the  church  since  that  date 
have  been  recorded ;  but  the  proceedings  of  this  meeting,  for  reasons  which  I  l^now 
QOt,  have  beea  omiited. 

t  To  prevent  misapprehension,  I  will  note,  that  the  church  and  pastor,  without  ob- 
jection, concurred  in  the  choice  of  the  moderator,  though  he  was  nominated  by  the 
aggrieved  ;  And  I  would  also  observe,  that  the  moderator,  in  the  performance  of  his 
duty,  gave  general,  and,  I  believe,  entire  satisfaction.  The  reason  of  mentioning  the 
moderator  as  one  of  iheir  own  choice^  is  that  they  appeared  determined  not  to  agree  up. 
on  any  one  to  preside  at  the  meeting,  that  was  not  of  their  Domination. 

J  As  all  attempts  to  agree  upon  a  Mutual  Council,  by  whose  decision  the  parties 
ahould  he.  bound,  had  now  failed  ;  and  as  several  attempts  bad  been  made  at  d'ifcr^r^ 


4± 

In  about  live  or  six  weeks,  their  movements  were  again 
manifest.     Private  meetings,  which  had  been  occasionally 

f'mrs  by  Mr.  W.  and  his  opponents  to  agree  upon  the  men  that  should  compose  the 
Coancil,  1  think  it  proper  to  state  several  offers  made  bv  Mr.  W.  and  the  principle  on. 
■which  he  was  willing  to  agree  that  the  Council  should  be  chosen;  As  the  propoiition 
for  calling  a  Council  contemplated  ths  event  of  Mr.  W.'i  dismission,  and  as  his  luture 
prospects,  in  the  character  of  a  Christian  minister,  mighi  essentially  dcperid  upon  the 
Result,  he  claimed  it  as  a  matter  of  right,  to  have  an  equal  voice  with  his  opponents 
in  choosing  the  Council.  Me  W,  has  ever  considered  his  proposals  as  to  the  choice 
of  a  Council  urquestionably  lair  and  liberal,  and  even  mote  so  than  strict  justice  on 
his  part  required. 

Mr,  V/.  uniformly  declared  hii  reidiness  to  agree  upon  the  Council  that  ordained 
him,  i.  c.  the  miDisters  of  ihe  churches  to  which  lettes  were  sent  at  :he  time  of  his  or- 
dination, and  such  delegates  as  thev  might  choose.  This  Coi.mcil  was  expressly  de-* 
cJared  Trinitaiian  by  ilie  Rev  Mr.  Dow.  and  the  committee  of  the  chu^-ch,  in  their  ftate- 
ment  before  th?  Ecclesiastical  Council  caller]  to  give  their  advice  in  May  preceding. 
Says  the  statement.  "He  [.Mr.  W.]  vi-js  ordained  hy  a  Trinitaiian  Council,"  The 
Rev.  gentlemen  that  belonged  to  the  Ord^iining  Council  were  as  follow  : 
Rev,  Dr.  Whitircy,  of  Brooklyn,  Conn. 

Dr.  Sumner,  of  Shrewsbury,  Msss> 

Dr.  Lee,  of  Lisbon,  Conn. 

KI^  Pope,  of  Spencer.  Mass. 

Mr.  Aikins,  of  Killingly,  Conn. 

Mr.  Fiske,  of  ^'e\v--Bramlree,  Mass. 

Mr.  Williams,  of  Dudley,  Mass. 

Mr.  Whipple,  of  Charlton,  Mass. 

Mr  Fisher,  of  Windham,  Conn. 

Mr.  Nelson,  ui  Leicester,  Mass, 
A  letter  was  sent  to  the  second  church  in  Canterbury.  Conn,  of  which  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Learned  is  pastor.     A  delfgatc  from  that  cliirch  was  present  at  the  ordination  ;  the 
past«r  was  not. 

In  th*!  choice  of  the  Ordaining  Council,  the  church  exercised  an  equal  right  with 
the  pastor  elect.  To  the  calling  of  this  Council  the  aggiieved  biethten  would  noS 
agree. 

Mr.  W.  further  proposed,  that  the  aggrieved  brethren  should  name  a  particuljr 
number  of  ministers,  of  such  principles  and  character  as  they  might  choose;  and  that 
he  would  name  an  equal  number,  and  then  they  would  agree  upon  the  chairman.  He 
also  proposed,  that  the  chairman  should  be  a  known  Trinitaiian;  but  liberal  in  his- 
views  of  communion.  He  was  willing  to  agree  upon  a  Trinitarian  of  the  same  general 
character  with  lie  Rev.  Dr.  Whitney,  the  senior  pastor  of  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  or 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Latbrop,  of  Wcst-SpfiDgfield.  Mr.  W.  was  aware  of  the  difficulty  of 
fixing  upon  any  gentlemm  precisely  of  this  stamp.  But  he  considered  the  proposal 
on  his  part  aUogetricr  liberal,  and  was  ready  serioiisly  to  join  in  selecting  one  as  near- 
ly of  that  character  as  could  be  found  Among  others,  Mr.  W.  mentioned  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Puffer,  of  Berlin,  and  the  Rev,  Mr.  Doggett,  of  Mendon,  Mass.;  gentlemen  with 
v/hom  he  had  no  personal  acquaintance,  who  had  been  named  by  a  respectable  oitho> 
dox  clergyman  in  Connecticut,  and  who,  he  thought,  upon  inquiry,  would  be  ascer- 
l»ined  to  be  of  the  principles  and  character  desired,  The  latter  of  these  gentlemen  had 
also  been  frequently  mentioned  with  respect  by  one  of  Mr.  W.'s  principal  opposeri. 
But  no  agreement  was  effected.  At  length  the  Rev.  Mr.  Pope,  of  Spencer,  Mass.  was  nam- 
ed, by  a'friend  and  cotcinpoiary  of  his  ai  col  lege,  a  leading  member  of  the  church  inop' 
position  to  Mr.  W.  Mr.  W  immediately  agreed  that  Mr.  P.  should  be  the  man. 
The  gentleman,  however,  after  a  moment's  reflection  and  consultation  with  his  asso-' 
ciates,  concluded  not  to  agree  upon  Mr.  Pope  as  chairman  of  the  Council.  What  pos- 
sible  objection  theie  cculd  be  lo  Mr.  P.  who  is  particularly  esteemed  among  the  or= 
thodox  for  his  amiablencss  and  good  si^nsc,  as  well  as  integrity  and  soundness  in  the 
faith,  I  am  unable  to  conjecture.  In  ei/ery  attempt  to  agree  upon  a  Council,  the  op. 
posers  of  Mr.  W  would  content  to  no  gentleman  as  chairman,  but  an  individual,  who, 
they  were  satisfied,  aunsidcred  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  tbe  Triuity  eiseotiaj  to  Chri^r. 
lian  fellowship.  .     . 


frequent  in  the  course  of  the  season,  bi?t  for  a  time  had 
been  discontinued,  were  ai^ain  revived.  These  meet- 
ings were  favourable  for  maturing  their  plans,  and  making 
their  arrangements.  Some  of  the  brethren  who  had  ap- 
peared neutral  and  undecided,  and  others  who  had  contin- 
ued in  communion  with  Mr.  W.  and  who  had  approved  of 
his  propositions,  (but  were  somewhat  anxious  on  account 
of  his  change  of  opinion,)  were  frequently  and  earnestly  so- 
licited to  attend  their  meetings,  and,  I  may  well  suppose, 
to  assist  in  concerting  measures  for  the  discipline  or  re- 
moval of  their  pastor.  Several  were,  at  length,  induced  to 
join  them.  Thus  they  continued  their  efforts,  until  they 
probably  obtained  a  majority  of  individuals,  active  and  ef- 
ficient members  of  the  church,  to  come  into  their  meas- 
ures. About  the  middle  of  December,  a  charge  of  here- 
sy was  prepared,  and  one  of  their  number  was  appointed 
at  a  private  meeting  (as  it  afterwards  appeared)  to  present 
it  to  Mr.  W.  He  however  presented  it  as  an  individual, 
without  any  intimation  or  appearance  of  others'  concurring. 
The  charge  was  as  follows : 

"  You,  Rev.  Sir,  are  charged  with  departing  from  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  by  denying-  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  the  real  proper  deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  which  I  consider  as  a  great  and  dangerous  heresy,  of 
which  I  entreat  you  as  a  Christian  brother  to  repent  and 
make  retraction.  WILLIAM  BARRETT. 

«»3rooklyD,  Dec.  17th,  i8i6. 

"  To  the  Rev,  Luther  Wilhon:' 

This  charge  was  handed  by  Mr.  B.  without  any  intro- 
ductory observations.  It  was  attentively  read  by  Mr.  W. 
After  reading  it,  he  observed,  that  he  supposed  nothing 
would  give  satisfaction,  but  a  renunciation  of  what  was 
considered  his  errour,  and  an  acknowledgment  of  his  her- 
esy, as  stated  in  the  charge.  Mr.  W.  stated  to  Mr.  B, 
that  he  should  be  glad  to  agree  with  him  in  opinion,  if  he 
could  consistently  with  the  convictions  of  his  own  mind. 
Mr.  B.  thought  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  any  convert 
sation  upon  the  subject,  as  they  had  repeatedly  conversed 
upon  it  before.  He  proposed  to  Mr.  W.  the  only  terms 
of  reconciliation.    Mr,  W.  wished  them  to  be  committed 


44 

to  writing,  that  he  might  take  them  into  consideration,  and 
give  him  an  answer  the  next  day.     Mr.  B.  consented. 

^^  Brooklyn,  December  18M,  1816. 
*'  In  explanation  of  my  views  relative  to  a  charge  made 
by  me  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  contained  in  my 
communication  to  him,  dated  December  17th,  I  now  state 
to  him  the  only  conditions  which  will  afford  reconciliation 
and  satisfaction  to  me,  and  render  the  charge  of  no  effect 
against  the  said  Willson  ;  which  conditions  are  as  follow, 
viz.  That  he,  the  said  Willson,  shall  agree  with  the  church 
in  calling  a  Council  for  his  dismission,  and  be  disipissed, 
or  shall  repent,  and  make  retraction  of  his  great  and  dan- 
gerous heresv,  which  is  specified  in  the  above-mentioned 
charge.         '  WILLIAM  BARRETT." 

Mr.  W.  upon  deliberate  reflection,  could  not  comply 
with  the  conditions.  Every  person  will  judge  for  himself 
of  the  reasonableness  and  propriety  of  such  conditions  at 
any  time,  and,  especially,  held  out  to  a  pastor  by  a  Chris- 
tian brother  after  presenting  him  vi^ith  the  charge  of  heresy. 
But  he  probably  had  his  instructions ;  and  if  there  was 
any  thing  wrong  in  the  affair,  it  must  be  placed  to  the  ac- 
count of  his  brethren,  who  privately  appointed  him  to 
bring  forward  the  charge. 

After  some  days,  Mr.  B.  with  two  of  the  brethren,  vis- 
ited Mr.  W.  to  take  what  was  called  the  second  step, 
pointed  out  in  the  18th  of  Matthew.  Mr.  B.  at  the  first 
of  his  interview  with  Mr.  W.  called  upon  them  to  witness 
his  charge  of  heresy.  It  appeared,  that  the  brethren  con- 
sidered it  the  onlv  business  of  their  visit  to  be  witnesses 
of  the  charge  against  their  pastor.  Mr.  W.  having  ex- 
pressed his  opinion,  that  it  was  always  the  duty  of  the  com- 
plainant who  felt  himself  injured,  first  to  labour  with  his 
oflcnding  brother  to  convince  him  of  his  errour  or  offence, 
and  also  the  duty  of  those  whom  he  should  take  with  him,  to 
join  in  the  friendly  office  of  admonition,  one  of  them,  appar- 
ently in  doubt  as  to  the  obligation  that  was  upon  him,  entered 
into  conversation  with  Mr.  W.  upon  the  subject.  The  oth- 
er continued  silent,  considering  it  his  only  concern  to  be  a 
witness  of  the  charge  of  his  brother  B.  As  the  brethren 
were  about  to  take  their  leave,  Mr.  W.  observed,  that  if 
they  considered  it  a  Christian  duty  to  hear  the  apology  of 


45 

* 

the  accused  tor  his  supposed  errour,  and  to  use  their  tn- 
deavoura  to  reclaim  him,  he  wished  for  another  interview, 
that  he  might  lay  before  them  his  reasons  in  full  for  the 
opinion  that  was  deemed  heretical,  and  that  he  might  have 
opportunitv  to  hear  them  upon  a  subject  which  they  con- 
sidered of  the  greatest  importance.  They  left  him,  appa- 
rently undetermined  as  to  their  duty  in  the  case  :  they  did 
not,  however,  think  proper  to  visit  him  again. 

Mr.  B.  a  few  days  after,  handed  Mr.  W.  the  foUowmg 
complaint,  addressed  to  the  church  : 

"  To  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Brooklyn. 

^'Brethren  AWD  BELOVED,  . 

"  The  subscriber  would  lay  before  you  the  foUowmg 
complaint,  viz.  That  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  colleague 
pastor  of  this  church,  has  departed  from  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints,  by  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trmi- 
ty,  and  the  real  proper  deity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  de- 
claring it  to  be  his  prevailing  opinion,  both  in  publick  and 
private,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  God,  is  not 
in  his  own  nature,  as  a  divine  person,  equal  and  eternal 
with  the  Father,  the  supreme  and  self-existent  God  ;  which 
sentiment  we  consider  as  an  essential  errour,  so  essential, 
that  we  can  no  longer,  in  conscience,  sit  under  his  admin- 
istration.    The  first  and  second  steps  have  been  taken  in 
order  to  reclaim  him,  agreeable  to  the  18th  of  Matthew, 
but  without  producing  the  desired  effect.     This  is  there- 
fore to  request  this  church  to  take  due  cognizance  of  the 
same,  and  to  take  proper  measures  for  the  Rev.  Luther 
Willson  to  be  brought  to  trial,  where  evidence  of  the  above 
charee  may  be  exhibited,  and  a  regular  decision  obtain, 
ed.*        "  WILLL\M  BARRETT. 

*'  Brooklyn,  Dec.  28th,  1816." 

•  It  is  wortbv  of  note,  that  this  brother,  in  telling  his  complaint  to  the  church, 
(though  it  never  reached  any  church,  except  the  Consecution,)  began  in  the  "^g^^"> 
and  at  length  became  plural.  The  subscriber  first  appeared  as  an  individual.  When  he 
had  reached  the  middle  of  his  complaint,  he  became  we  :  '•  which  sentiment,  hesays, 
«'eu«  consider  an  essential  errour,  so  essential,  that  we  can,  in  conscience.no  longer  sit  un- 
der his  administration."  I  shall  here  undertake  to  account  for  this  change  from  singular 

to  plural. The  probable  method  of  accounting  for  the  plural  pronoun  rue,  is  the 

habit  of  this  brother  and  his  companions.of  saying  we  at  their  private  meetings,  where 
individuals  acting  in  concert,  and  composing  one  body,  were  probably  identihed  la 
the  complaint.  The  complainant,  in  company  with  his  brethren,  being  accustomed  to 
aay  we  on  these  occasions,  it  was  not  strange  that,  in  copying  or  making  out  his  com- 
munication  to  the  church,  he  should  begin  in  the  singular,  imperceptibly  become  plu- 
yal,  and  fhea  fpin  rcturo  to  the  singular,  ind  snb&ciibe  the  complaiatas  ao  ladivjriu?.. 


AS 

After  reading  the  complaint,  which  was  handed  on  Sat- 
urday, Mr.  W.  inquired  of  Mr.  B.  whether  he  wished  to 
have  it  communicated  to  the  church  the  next  day.  Mr, 
B.  observed,  that  as  to  that  he  might  do  as  he  pleased. 
After  a  moment's  reflection,  Mr.  B.  preferred  that  it  should 
not  be  communicated  at  that  time.  It  appeared  from  cir- 
cumstances, that  Mr.  B.  furnished  Mr.  W.  with  the  com- 
plaint, to  apprize  him  of  his  intention  soon  to  lay  it  before 
the  church  for  their  consideration. 

The  same  day  that  the  complaint  was  received,  Mr.  W, 
had  put  into  his  hands  by  Roger  W.  Williams,  a  deacon 
of  the  church,  the  foUov/ing  appointment  of  a  church 
meeting : 

"  To  Brother  Roger  TV.  TViUiams,  a  member  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  in  Brooklyn. 

**  You  are  hereby  notified,  that  there  will  be  a  meeting 
of  the  church  held  at  the  meeting-house  on  Tuesday,  the 
51st  instant,  at  one  o'clock,  P.  M.  to  hear  and  consider  the 
subject  matter  of  complaint  brought  by  brother  Barrett  a- 
gainst  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson  for  heresy,  and  to  adopt 
£uch  measures  as  may  then  be  thought  proper.* 

"  JOSEPH  SCARBOROUGH, 

Deacon  of  said  Church, 
''Brooklyn,  Dec.  21th,  1816." 

The  same  day  on  which  the  complaint  and  notification 
were  put  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  W.  Dr.  Whitney,  the  se- 
nior pastor,  who  did  not,  at  that  time,  attend  publick  wor- 
ship, sent  for  Mr.  W.  the  junior  pastor,  to  call  at  his 
house,  that  he  might  inform  him  of  the  wish  of  several 
members  of  the  church,  that  he,  (the  junior  pastor,)  after 

*  It  is  obssTvablc,  that  Dca.  Joseph  Scarborough,  in  his  notification  Jo  Dea.  Roger 
W.  Williams,  addressed  him  as  a  brother,  and  not  at  an  officer  of  the  church.  What 
could  be  the  reason  of  this  ?  Was  it  possible  for  Dea,  S.  at  the  moment  he  wrote  thii, 
to  be  so  under  the  influence  of  unchristian  feelings,  as  intentionally  to  insinuate,  by 
neglecting  to  give  the  person  notlEed  his  proper  title,  that  he  was  unworthy  of  his  of- 
fice in  the  church  ?  Was  it  mere  accident  or  inadvertence  ?  Or  could  he  suppose  it  s 
more  affectionate  mode  of  address  to  one  with  whom  he  had  not  been  disposed  to 
commune  for  about  six  months  ?  Or  did  he,  in  fact,  possess  so  much  sensibility  and 
delicacy,  in  assuming  to  himself  the  power  of  appointing  a  church  meeting,  as  to  feel 
the  impropriety  of  sending  out  a  formal  notificatioD  to  an  officer  in  the  church  of  the 
same  rank  with  himself;  and  therefore,  to  give  himself  an  air  of  superiority  suited  to 
the  authority  he  had  assumed,  think  it  proper,  in  the  aotification,  to  address  Dee. 
V/.  as  a  biothefg  and  ia  signing  it,  to  tubscrilj:  hinneff  u  no  c^ccr^  as  dtacon  oi  tine 
church  ? 


m 

llie  exercises  of  the  sabbath,  the  next  day,  should  appoint 
a  meeting  of  the  church,  to  be  held  on  Tuesday,  at  one- 
o'clock  ;  the  same  time  stated  in  the  notification  of  Dea, 
S.  Dr.  W.  observed,  that  the  business  of  the  meeting  he 
did  not  know ;  of  that  he  had  not  been  informed.  Mr, 
W.  then  presented  him  the  notification  signed  officially  by 
Dea.  Scarborough,  of  prior  date,  containing  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  meeting  at  the  same  time,  and  stating  the  busi- 
ness of  the  meeting.  Mr.  W.  supposed  one  notification 
to  be  sufficient,  if  it  was  regular  and  official,  as  it  claimed 
to  be.  He  was  therefore  unwilling  to  interfere,  unless  the 
senior  pastor  should  direct  the  meeting  to  be  publickly 
warned  on  the  sablxith.  Mr.  W.  observed,  that  he  was 
willing  to  mention  publickly  the  request  that  had  been 
made  to  Dr.  W.  without  taking  upon  himself  the  respon- 
sibility of  appointing  a  meeting.  The  senior  pastor,  ap- 
pearing somewhat  embarrassed  at  the  officiousness  of  the 
good  deacon,  said  to  Mr.  W.  that  on  the  whole  he  must 
do  as  he  thought  proper. 

Accordingly  Mr.  W.  after  the  publick  exercises  of  the 
sabbath,  stated  what  had  been  communicated  to  him  by 
the  senior  pastor,  read  the  notification  signed  by  Dea. 
Scarborough,  and  o))served,  that  he  should  not  presume  to 
interfere  with  the  appointment  of  Dea.  S.  which  claimed 
to  be  official,  and  was  of  earlier  date.  He  also  observed, 
that,  in  view  of  all  circumstances,  the  brethren  of  the 
church  would  probably  meet  at  the  time  specified  ia  the 
notice  of  Dea.  S. 

At  the  time  appointed  for  the  meeting,  the  brethren  of 
the  church  were  generally  together,  and  a  neighbouring 
clergyman  had  come,  at  the  request  of  Dea.  Scarborough, 
to  perform  the  duty  of  moderator,  if  a  meeting  should  be 
held,  and  he  should  be  requested  by  the  church.  The 
business  was  thus  far  planned  and  executed  by  Dea,  S. 
and  the  aggrieved  brethren  with  a  fair  prospect  of  success. 
This  worthy  gentleman  and  his  associates  probably  con- 
sidered themselves  the  true  church,  and  therefore  thought 
it  proper  for  them  privately  to  know  each  other's  minds, 
and  to  make  what  arrangements  they  pleased  ;  and,  no 
doubt,  considered  it  the  duty  of  others  readily  to  conform 
to  them,  not  attempting  in  any  way. to  impede  the  progress 
of  their  pious  and  benevolent  designs.     But,  unreasonable 


48 

and  unchristian  as  it  may  seem,  when  the  brethren  of  tiie 
church  came  together,  some  members  were  not  altogether 
siatisficd  with  appearances  ;  and  they  even  had  the  presump- 
tion (if  I  may  be  allowed  the  use  of  so  strong  a  term)  to 
call  in  question  the  regularity  of  the  meeting,  and  to  in- 
quire into  the  authority  of  Dea.  S.  to  appoint  a  church 
meeting,  and  call  in  a  moderator,  without  the  knowledge 
and  concurrence  of  the  church,  the  pastors,  or  the  other 
deacon.  They  thought  it  contrary  to  usage,  and  an  extra- 
ordinary assumption  for  a  junior  deacon  (junior  in  ofiice, 
though  senior  in  age)  to  take  it  upon  himself,  imsolicited 
by  the  church,  or  any  of  its  officers,  officially  to  appoint  a 
church  meeting  for  the  important  purpose  of  dealing  with 
a  pastor  for  heresy,  or  of  referring  him  over  to  the  higher 
powers.  It  will  also  be  recollected  that  this  gentleman, 
who  now  seemed  to  have  upon  him,  unrequested,  the  care 
of  the  whole  church,  less  than  three  months  before,  openly 
declared  himself  a /j^r^z/  man^  and  consequently  an  unsuit- 
able person  to  preside  as  moderator,  when  chosen  by  the 
cliurch.  But  the  motives  and  feelings  of  men  sometimes 
change,  as  well  as  their  opinions  ;  and  those  that  were  once 
the  most  partial,  may  soon  become  the  most  disinterested 
and  most  unwearied  in  their  exertions  for  the  common 
good,  and  consequently  most  entitled  to  the  respect  and 
confidence  of  their  brethren. 

It  may  appear  to  some  absolutely  inexcusable,  and  an 
indelible  mark  of  reproach,  in  the  conduct  of  a  pastor,  to 
be  seen  among  the  number  that  should  object  to  the  regu- 
larity of  a  meeting,  warned  by  a  deacon  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  church,  or  any  other  of  its  officers  ;  but  truth  and 
justice  require,  that  facts  should  be  impartially  stated  ;  and 
it  was  a  fact,  that  Mr.  W.  the  junior  pastor,  with  otliers, 
objected  to  the  regularity  of  the  meeting,  considering  the 
circumstance  of  its  notification.  He  also  was  so  uncandid 
and  imprudent,  as  seriously  to  declare  his  suspicion  of  par- 
ticular management  on  the  part  of  the  aggrieved  brethren^ 
at  their  private  meetings,  to  ascertain,  by  a  previous  knowl- 
edge of  the  minds  of  individuals,  that  a  majority  of  the 
brethren,  who  would  attend  a  publick  meeting,  were  pre-- 
pared  to  sanction  by  vote,  any  thing  that  individuals  of  their 
number  might  propose.. 


49 

The  aggrieved  brethren  appeared  extremely  anxious  to 
have  the  meeting  formed  by  calling  in  the  clergyman  be- 
fore-mentioned, then  at  the  house  of  the  senior  pastor,  to 
preside.  Mr.  W.  objected,  at  the  same  time  declaring 
himself  willing  to  have  a  meeting  appointed  to  be  held  the 
next  day,  or  at  any  time  that  would  be  most  agreeable  to 
the  brethren  ;*  and  he  had  no  objection  to  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman, invited  by  Dea.  Scarborough,  as  moderator. 

The  meeting  not  being  formed,  and  the  members  of  the 
church  conversing  with  considerable  freedom  one  with  an- 
other, Mr.  W.  requested  liberty  of  his  brother  Barrett 
(who,  according  to  arrangements,  was  soon  to  appear  his 
accuser  before  the  church)  to  ask  him  a  question.  Mr. 
B.  readily  consented.  As  soon  as  he  had  consented,  and 
the  question  was  about  to  be  proposed,  several  of  his 
brethren,  Dea.  S.  and  others,  (who  were  particularly  dis- 
cerning, and  whose  attention  was  always  awake,  when 
there  was  a  possibility  of  being  exposed  to  their  disadvan- 
tage,) immediately  discovered  great  uneasiness,  and  warm- 
ly opposed  Mr.  W.'s  putting  any  question  to  Mr.  B.  and 
disapproved  of  Mr.  B.'s  consentmg  to  hear  it.  This  cir- 
cumstance only  tended  to  confirm  Mr.  W.  in  the  suspi- 
cion, that  there  was  something  undiscovered,  that  would 
not  appear  so  well  upon  examination  before  the  publick, 
as  it  did  in  a  more  private  circle,  where  all  were  more  of 
one  accord  and  one  mind.  He  therefore  insisted  upon 
putting  the  question  to  Mr.  B.  as  he  had  consented  to 
hear  it,  and  as  it  was  no  interruption  to  any  business  be- 
Ibre  the  church ;  observing,  at  the  same  time,  that  Mr.  B. 
was  at  liberty  to  answer  it,  or  not,  as  he  pleased.  Mr.  W. 
observed,  that  if  any  members  of  the  church  chose  not  to 
hear  the  question  proposed  publickly ,  he  would  go  aside  with 
Mr.  B.  and  propose  it  in  the  presence  of  only  two  or  three  of 
the  brethren.  The  aggrieved,  notwithstanding,  were  so 
highly  offended  at  his  determination  to  ask  Mr.  B.  a  ques- 
'tion  aside  in  the  presence  of  a  few  of  the  brethren,  and  at 
his  going  aside  with  Mr.  B.  for  that  purpose,  that  they  left 

•  The  Teaion  why  Mr.  W.  objected  to  the  meeting  being  held  at  the  time,  and  wish- 
ed it  to  be  deferred  until  the  next,  or  some  future  day,  (though  it  was  noc  then  stated,) 
was  the  probability  of  obtaining  a  knowledge  of  circumstances,  that  migh;  pieveni 
<he  success  of  a  plan,  formed,  as  he  had  reasons  to  suspect,  privately  and  dishonouia* 
bly,  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  particular  purpose. 


50 

ihe  meetlng-lionse  with  much  clamour  and  confusion,  ac- 
cused Mr.  W.  of  breaking  up  the  meeting,  and  proclaimed 
him  a  very  disorderly  man. 

Mr.  W.  claiming  an  obligation  on  the  part  of  Mr.  B.  to 
hear  his  question,  according  to  his  consent,  they  went  out 
together,  and,  in  the  presence  of  others  that  were  with 
them,  Mr.  W.  said  to  Mr.  B.  *^'  Was  the  charge  of  heresy, 
that  you  presented  me,  made  out  at  a  previous  meeting  of 
a  number  of  brethren  of  the  church  ?"  Mr.  B.'s  answer 
was,  "  Yes."  Mr.  W.  then  inquired,  "  whether  these 
brethren  agreed  to  support  the  charge  of  heresy  against 
him  ?"  Mr.  B.  replied,  *'  I  suppose  it  was  so.'*  Mr.  W. 
further  inquired,  "  Who  were  the  individuals  that  thus  a- 
greed  ?"  To  this  inquiry  he  could  obtain  no  answer. 
Several  of  the  aggrieved  brethren  had  become  so  disturb- 
ed, that  Mr.  B.  thought  it  not  prudent  to  answer  again. 
Individuals,  however,  observed,  that  all  that  were  present 
concurred  in  it,  that  they  wished  nothing  private,  that  they 
were  willing  the  world  should  know  of  their  proceedings.* 

From  these  and  other  circumstances,  Mr.  W.  obtained 
evidence,  satisfactory  to  himself,  that  Mr.  B.  though  he 
presented  the  charge  and  complaint,  as  an  inaividual,  was 
actually  appointed  for  this  purpose,  at  a  private  meeting, 
b}"*  the  aggrieved  brethren  ;  and  also  to  bring  his  com- 
plaint before  the  church,  when  they  should  have  completed 
their  arrangements  by  a  private  and  mutual  understanding, 
so  as  to  secure  the  concurrence  of  a  major  part  of  the 
church  in  any  mea«=ure  that  an  individual  of  their  number 
might  propose.  By  this  well-concerted  plan,  Mr.  B.  in 
due  time,  was  to  bring  forward  his  complaint ;  and  those 
who  had  fitted  him  out  upon  this  business,  given  him  in- 
structions, and  pledged  him  their  co-operation  and  sup- 
port, were  to  take  up  the  subject  of  complaint,  when  it 
should  come  before  the  church,  as  if  it  were  before  them 
for  the  first  time  ;  and,  as  impartial  and  disinterested  per- 
sons, were  to  suggest  and  adopt  such  methods  of  proceed- 
ing, as  should  be  thought  necessary  and  proper.  In  this 
way,  I  have  no  doubt,  they  expected  to  obtain  the  sanction 
of  the  church  in  calling  the  Consociation  of  Windham 
County  to  try  and  condemn  their  junior  pastor  for  heresy. 

*  After  ilic  affair  waj  out,  and  could  no  lonf,cr  U?  concealed,  they  were  much  mo'^ 
willing  than  tbey  wj.c  beforCt 


51 

In  about  ati  hour  after  the  members  of  tlic  church  witii- 
drew  from  the  meeting-house,  two  of  the  aggrieved  breth 
ren,  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Da)-,  of  Killingly,  (the  gentleman 
invited  by  Dea.  S.)  called  upon  Mr.  W.  to  know;,  wheth- 
er he  wished  a  church  meeting ;  stating,  that  if  he  did, 
they  would  agree  upon  the  time,  and  have  one  appointed. 
Mr.  W.  observed,  that  it  was  not  for  him  to  determine  ; 
that  he  had  no  business  before  the  church,  unless  his  ac- 
cuser, or  accusers,  wished  him  to  appear.  If  they  wished 
a  meeting  appointed,  he  had  no  objection.  He  was  ready 
to  appoint  one,  and  to  ansv/er  to  the  complaint  of  heresy  ; 
only  he  wished  the  meeting  to  be  regularly  warned,  and 
the  business  of  it  particularly  stated.  Being  asked  what  he 
would  consider  a  regular  w^arning,  he  replied,  if  Dr,  W, 
the  senior  pastor,  would  prepare  a  notification,  he  would 
read  it  publickly  on  the  sabbath,  and  would  consider  it  as 
altogether  proper  and  regular  ;  and  he  was  willing  to  agree, 
that  the  Rev.  Mr,  Day  be  moderator. 

Two  of  the  brethren  (not  of  the  aggrieved)  being  at  the 
house  of  Mr.  W.  when  these  gentlemen  called,  entered 
into  conversation  with  them  upon  the  subject,  and  they 
mutually  agreed,  as  I  understood  from  hearing  their  con- 
versation, to  have  a  meeting  in  about  tw^enty  days,  (the 
day  of  the  meeting  was  named,)  and  that  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Day  should  preside  as  moderator.  The  rcason  of  its  be- 
ing deferred  so  long  was  to  accommodate  individuals  who 
wished  to  attend  the  meeting,  and  who  must  necessarily 
be  absent  on  business  or  journeys,  previously  arranged, 
during  that  time. 

After  two  or  three  days,  Mr.  W.  received  the  following 
communication. 

'^'  To  the  Rev,  Luther  JVillson,  Junior  Pastof  of  ChrisVs 
Church  in   Brooklyn, 

"  We,  who  are  members  of  said  church,  having  serious- 
ly reflected  upon  the  discordant  spirit  exhibited  at  our 
church  meetings,  (especially  at  the  last  that  was  attempted,;) 
are  of  opinion,  that  they  do  not  make  for  peace,  nor  the 
honour  of  religion,  therefore  have  no  desire  to  have  anoth- 
er, unless  you  wish  for  one  ;  and  if  you  wish  to  have  an- 
other, we  are  wiHing  to  have  one  under  the  following  re- 
strictions onli/y  viz.  That  it  be  held  by  the  middle  of  next 


52 

week,  and  warned  solely  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
Mr.  Barrett's  complaint  of  heresy  against  the  Rev.  Lu- 
ther Willson  ;  and  that  the  Rev.  Israel  Day  be  nominated 
as  moderator  in  the  warning,  as  agreed. 

"JOSEPH  SCARBOROUGH, 

in  behalf  of  the  aggrieved  Brethren.- 

'' Dated  BrooJdyn,  Jan.  2,  1817." 

Immediately  upon  receiving  this,  Mr.  W.  called  upon 
Mr.  B.  who  had  put  into  his  hands  a  complaint  addressed 
to  the  church,  to  ascertain,  if  he  were  present,  and  con- 
curred in  the  communication  of  Dea.  S.  in  behalf  of  the 
aggrieved,  and,  also,  if  he  wished  a  meeting  appointed, 
that  he  might  lay  his  complaint  before  the  church.  Mr. 
W.  was  particularly  desirous  of  being  informed  what  were 
his  views  and  wishes  in  the  case.  Mr.  B.  furnished  an 
answer  in  writing. 

"Brooklyn,  Jan. 3,  1817. 
"  To  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson, 

*'  Sir — My  mind  is,  with  regard  to  the  communication 
handed  to  you  by  Capt.  Tyler,  that  the  charge  may  be 
brought  before  the  Consociation,  and  not  before  the  church, 
for  a  decision.  WILLIAM  BARRETT." 

Mr.  W.  then  replied  to  Dea.  S. 

"Brooklyn, Jan.  3,  1817. 
"  Dea.  Joseph  Scarborough, 

"  I  would  briefly  state,  in  answer  to  your  communica- 
tion of  Jan.  2d  in  behalf  of  the  aggrieved  brethren,  that, 
as  you  have  no  desire,  on  your  part,  for  a  church  meeting, 
to  take  into  consideration  the  complaint  of  heresy  against 
me,  and  to  have  it  acted  upon  by  the  church  ;  but  only 
proposed  it  as  a  matter  of  accommodation,  with  certain  re- 
strictions, if  I  should  wish  a  meeting  for  that  purpose ; 
and  as  it  is  the  mind  of  Mr.  Barrett,  the  complainant,  to 
lay  the  matter  of  charge,  or  complaint,  immediately  before 
the  Consociation  for  decision,  rather  than  refer  it  to  the 
church  ;  and  as  there  is  nothing  mutual  in  the  affair  of  re- 
ferring the  subject  of  complaint  for  a  decision,  but  the 
business  is  pursued  entirely  by  way  of  accusation,  I  have 
concluded  not  to  warn  a  meeting,  (and  especially  as  you 


53 

do  not  desire  one,)  but  to  leave  the  matter  entirely  to  my 
accLiser,  or  accusers,  to  choose  their  own  method  of  pro- 
ceeding, and  shall  endeavour  to  meet  the  accusation  as  I 
may  think  proper,  and  occasion  may  require. 

"LUTHER  WILLSON." 

Five  of  the  aggrieved  brethren,  styling  themselves  '^ 
committee,  early  in  the  month  of  January  applied  to  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Welch,  of  Mansfield,  to  appoint  a  meeting  of  the 
Consociation  of  Windham  County,  to  take  cognizance  of 
a  complaint  of  heresy  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson, 
their  junior  pastor. 

"Brooklyn,  Jan.  8,  1817. 
''JRev.  Moses  C.  TFelch,  D.D. 
"Dearly  beloved, 

"  Notwithstanding  we  have  requested  our  beloved  broth- 
er,  Benjamin  Pierce,  to  make  known  our  case  to  you,  yet 
we  think  it  meet  to  state  to  you,  that  the  difficulties  in  the 
church,  occasioned  by  our  junior  pastor,  the  Rev.  Luther 
Willson's  altering  his  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  second  person  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  have  been  in- 
creasing for  about  one  year  ;  and  he  yet  persists  in  the  be- 
lief that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  not  in 
his  own  nature  equal  and  eternal  with  the  Father,  the  self- 
existent  God,  notwithstanding  the  exertions  of  many  to 
reclaim  him  ;  and  especially,  lately  our  beloved  brother, 
William  Barrett,  has  taken  the  steps  pointed  out  in  the 
18th  of  St.  Matthew  ;  but  he  still  remains  unyielding  :  in. 
consequence  of  which,  Mr.  Barrett  has  lodged  a  complaint, 
charging  him,  the  said  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  of  being  guilty 
of  heresy,  'in  departing  from  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,  by  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  real 
proper  deity  of  Jesus  Christ,'  as  you  will  see  by  the  com- 
plaint herewith  transmitted  to  you.  This,  therefore,  is  to 
request  you,  as  moderator  of  the  consociated  churches  in 
the  county  of  Windham,  to  call  out  said  Consociation,  or 
any  part  of  them  that  you  may  judge  proper,  agreeable  to 
Saybrook  Platform,  as  soon  as  may  be  convenient,  to  meet 
at  the  dwelling-house  of  Daniel  Tyler,  in  said  Brooklyn, 
to  hear  said  complaint,  evidences  to  support  the  charges, 


64 

and  Mr.  M^illson's  defence — and  pass  sentenee  ti^reorij, 
agreeable  to  said  Platform. 

"  We  are,  in  tlie  faith  and  fellowship  of  the  gospel, 
Joseph  Scarborough^  ] 

Daniel  Tyler ^  I   a  Committee  for 

Jezamah  Summr.       \   X^TyZ^f 

,  Benjamin  Pierce^  I   the  Consociation."* 

Moses  Clarky  j 

"  The  above  and  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  the  original 
communication  from  the  aggrieved  brethren  in  the  church 
in  Brooklyn. 

^'  Test,  MOSES  C.  WELCH. 

''Majtsfeld,  Sept.  13,  1817." 

The  brethren  that  subscribed  this  communication  speak 
of  difficulties  in  the  church,  occasioned  by  Mr.  W.'s 
change  of  sentiments,  as  having  been  increasing  for  about  a 
year  ;  and  of  his  persisting  m  a  belief  which  they  consider- 
ed a  great  errour,  notwithstanding  the  exertions  of  manr/ 
to  reclaim  him.  They  mention,  particularly,  the  steps  ta- 
ken by  their  beloved  brother^  William  Barrett ;  and  that, 
after  all  the  exertions  of  the  many^  and  especially  of  this 
brother,  still  their  pastor  remained  unyielding.  One  would 
suppose,  from  this  very  affectionate  and  impressive  repre- 
sentation, that,  with  great  sincerity,  and  with  patient  and 
continued  exertions,  for  nearly  a  year,  many  of  the  breth- 
ren had  been  labouring  with  their  pastor  to  reclaim  him 
from  2>.  fundamental  errour,  and  to  prevent  the  increase  of 
difficulties  in  the  church. 

I  will  here  mention  some  facts,  that  may  be  considered 
in  connexion  with  the  representation  contained  in  this 
letter. 

These  five  brethren,  calling  themselves  a  committee, 
were  the  principal  and  most  influential  opposers  of  Mr. 
W.'s  ministry.  Three  of  the  five,  (one  an  officer  of  the 
church,  and  another  a  gentleman  of  publick  and  liberal  ed- 
ucation) in  the  course  of  this  year,  in  which  so  much  had 
been  done  to  convince  a  pastor  of  his  errour,  had  never 
manifested  a  wish,  nor  sought  an  interview,  to  converse 

*  Th:  brethrea  that  made  this  communication,  style  themselves  a  Committee.  Oi 
what  ihey  were  a  committee  I  know  oot.  Bat  I  will  tafoim  the  publick,  that  tbey 
were  oot  a  committee  of  the  church. 


5B 

with  him  upon  the  subject  in  question ;  to  inquire  into 
the  reasons  that  induced  him  to  alter  his  sentiments,  or  to 
use  their  endeavours  to  convince  him  of  his  errour. 

Immediately  after  the  vote  of  the  church  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  in  February,  1816,  in  which  they  con- 
curred, Mr.  W.  expressly  desired  them  to  call  upon  him, 
that  he  might  have  opportunity  to  converse  with  them. 
But,  anxious  and  earnest  as  they  were  for  his  recovery 
from  unbelief,  and  for  his  spiritual  welfare,  they  never 
thought  it  proper,  either  as  Christians  or  neighbours,  to  re- 
gard his  request.  I  will  here  remark,  that  after  they  with- 
drew from  communion,  the  pastor  called  upon  them,  to  as- 
certain their  views  and  motives  in  withdrawing ;  and  one 
of  them  (Dea.  Joseph  Scarborough)  at  a  particular  inter- 
view upon  withdrawing  from  communion,  after  manifest- 
ing a  decided  disinclination  as  to  conversing  with  the  pas- 
tor, very  soon  overcoming  his  reluctance,  with  a  latitude 
and  occasional  severity,  not  the  most  worthy  of  imitation, 
conversed  with  him  freely.  At  this  time,  the  opinions  of 
the  pastor,  among  other  things,  were  a  subject  of  remark 
and  reproof.  I  think,  however,  it  may  be  said  with  pro- 
priety, that  his  opinions  were  not  in  any  respect  a  subject 
of  serious  and  candid  discussion.  The  conversation  was 
very  desultory,  and  related  principally  to  circumstances 
adventitious  and  incidental. 

Again  it  may  be  added,  that  Mr.  Barrett,  in  taking  what 
are  called  the  tegular  steps  of  discipline  according  to  the 
18th  of  Matthew,  was  cautious,  at  his  first  interview  with 
the  pastor,  when  he  presented  the  charge  of  heresy  ;  and  al- 
so at  the  second,  when  he  came  with  two  of  his  brethren  ; 
not  to  enter  into  conversation  with  him,  in  the  way  of  dis- 
cussion or  admonition,  upon  the  difrerence  of  opinion  that 
existed  between  them.  It  is  also  a  remarkable  ftict,  that 
but  two  of  the  brethren  that  had  appeared  in  opposition  to 
the  pastor  (one  of  them  Mr.  B.)  had  ever  addressed  him  in 
direct  terms  as  chargeable  with  heresy,  until  application 
was  made  to  the  Consociation  ;  and  that  comparatively 
few,  not  a  fifth  part  of  the  brethren  of  the  church,  nor  hajf 
the  number  of  the  aggrieved  brethren,  had  ever  admonished 
him  of  his  errour  -a-, fundamental.  This  is  the  zeal — these 
are  the  sincere,  patient,  and  persevering  exertions  of  man.?/ 
to  reclaim  a  pastor  from  w  i-xVx\  errour.     Alas  !  the  cbsti- 


56 

nacy^  that  could  remain  unyieldingy  that  could  persist  ia 
errour,  after  the  efforts  of  so  many^  and  means  so  power- 
ful, affectionate,  and  long  continued,  had  been  employed 
to  remove  it. 

Copy  of  a  Letter  from  Dr.  Welch,  to  the  junior  pastor  of  the  church 
in  Brooklyn,  citing  him  to  appear  before  the  Consociation,  to  an- 
swer to  the  *■'  crime  of  heresy." 

"  Windham,  Jan.  16,  1817. 
«'  Rev.  Luther  JVillson,  Junior  Pastor  of  the  Chureh  in 

Brooklyn. 
<'  Sir — On  a  charge  against  you  for  the  '  crime  of  her- 
esy, in  departing  from  the  f^ith  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
by  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  ai;d  the  real  proper 
deity  of  Jesus  Christ,'  application  l^as  been  made  that  the 
Consociation  of  Windham  County  may  be  con  v^ened.  A 
meeting  of  said  Consociation  will  accordingly  be  had,  at 
the  house  of  Capt.  Daniel  Tyler,  in  Siiid  Brooklyn,  on  the 
first  Wednesday  in  February  next,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  to 
hear  and  determine  said  case.  You  are  therefore  notified 
of  said  meeting  of  Consociation,  that  you  may  appear,  and 
offer  such  plea  and  arguments  in  your  defence  as  you  may 
think  proper.  MOSES  C.  WELCH,  ModW.  of 

the  last  meeting  of  Consociation,'''* 

The  meeting  of  the  Consociation  was  held  at  the  time 
appointed. 

The  Consociation  being  organized,  they  adjourned  to 
the  meeting-house  to  attend  to  the  business  for  which  they 
"were  convened. 

They  met  according  to  adjournment.  A  paper  was  then 
exhibited,  containing  a  charge  and  complamt  against  the 
junior  pastor  of  the  church,  and  other  things  in  connexion. 

The  following  were  the  contents  : 

^*  Mr.  Barrett's  first  charge  is  in  the  words  following, 
viz. 

*  You,  Rev.  Sir,  are  charged  with  departing  from  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  by  denying  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  the  real  proper  deity  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  which  I  consider  as  a  great  and  dangerous  heresy, 
of  which  I  entreat  you  as  a  Christian  br'.ulier  to  repent  and 
make  retraction.  WILLIAM  BARRETT. 

'  Brooklyn,  Dec,  Vlth,  18 16.' 


57 

^Brooklyn,  Dec,  18 tk,  181G. 
^  III  explanation  of  my  views  relative  to  a  cliarge  made 
by  me  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Wiilson,  contained  in  my 
communication  to  him,  dated  Dec.  17th,  1816, 1  now  state 
to  him  the  only  conditions  which  will  afford  reconciliation 
and  satisfaction  to  me,  and  render  the  charge  of  no  effect 
against  the  said  Willson ;  which  conditions  are  as  follow, 
viz.  Tiie  said  Willson  shall  agree  with  the  church  in  call- 
in?  a  Council  for  his  dismission,  and  be  dismissed,  or 
shall  repent,  and  make  retraction  of  his  great  and  dange- 
rous heresy^  which  is  specified  in  the  above-mentioned 
charge.  WILLIAM  BARRETT.' 

*  To  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Brooldyn. 
^Brethren  and  beloved, 

*  The  subscriber  would  lay  before  you  the  following 
complaint,  viz.  That  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  colleague 
pastor  of  this  church,  has  departed  from  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints,  by  denying  the  doctrine  of  the  Trini- 
ty, and  the  real  proper  deity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  de- 
claring it  to  be  his  prevailing  opinion,  both  in  publick  and 
private,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  not, 
in  his  own  nature,  as  a  divine  person,  equal  and  eternal 
with  the  Father,  the  supreme  and  self-existent  God ;  which 
sentiment  we  consider  as  an  essential  errour,*  so  essential^ 

*  •'  An  essential  crrour."  How  essential  ?  "So  essential  that  we  can  no  longer  incon< 
science  sit  under  his  administration."  lUhis  be  a  rule  to  determine  that  an  errcur  it  essen<> 
till.  viz.  the  np'nions  and  feelings  of  individals,  meinbers  of  a  church,  who  happen  to 
be  dissatisfied  »viih  a  minister  on  account  of  his  belief  or  disbelief  of  some  particular 
dociriiie — I  have  '.cason  to  apptehend,  that,  in  almost  every  church,  a  few  disaffected 
members  would  find  it  easy  to  procure  the  denunciation  and  dismission  of  iheir  pas- 
tor, p'ovidsd  they  could  find  \\\^  Consoda'aon  of  the  same,  opinions  and  feelings  witb 
themselves.  Thus  a  tew  members  of  a  church,  and  the  Consociation,  may  a^wavs  find 
a  reason  for  deposing  a  minister,  of  whom  they  disapprove,  even  if  the  church  as  a 
body  are  satisRed  with  his  ministry  ;  and  the  criterion,  by  which  they  determine  his 
orrour  to  be  essential,  is  not  the  authority  of  scripture,  or  the  divine  rule,  but  their 
own  conscier.ces. 

The  amount  of  it  is  this  :  If  a  minister  believe  what  /  believe,  and  preach  the  doc- 
trine that  /  think  to  be  true,  he  must  hi  sound  in  tke  Jaiih  :  the  doctrine  which  he 
preaches  is  essentiil  truth  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  preaches  what  /cannot  consdentioas- 
iy  hear,  his  doctrine  cannot  be  true  ;  his  crrour  is  essential. 

This  is  a  remarkably  easy  method  of  determining  when  the  irrrorir  of  a  minister  is 
f,ssentiaL  I  can  think  of  but  one  inconvenience  in  this  method  of  determining  an  es- 
sential errour.  The  inconvenience  is  this.  Professing  Christians  have  sometimes  a 
great  share  of  self-complacency,  and  are  extremely  conscious  oi  the  perttction  of  their 
otun  knowledge  ;  ?nd  consequently  by  taking  upon  themiclves  very  freely  the  inspection 
and  oversight  of  ethers'  faith,  they  are  apt  to  be  troublesome  to  their  more  scrupulous 
and  less  confident  brethren,  who  cannot  see  things  so  clearly,  and  who  are  sometimes 
so  unfortunate  as  to  differ  from  them  in  opinion. 


58 

that  we  can  no  longer,  in  conscience,  sit  under  his  admin- 
istration. The  first  and  second  steps  have  been  taken  in 
order  to  reclaim  him,  agreeabl}'  to  the  18th  chapter  of  Mat- 
tiiew,  but  without  producing  the  desired  effect.  This  is 
therefore  to  request  this  church  to  take  due  cognizance  of 
the  same,  and  to  take  proper  measures  for  die  Rev.  Luther 
Willson  to  be  brought  to  trial,  where  evidence  of  the  above 
eharge  may  be  exhibited,  and  a  regular  decision  obtained. 

'  WILLIAM  BARRETT. 
^Brooklyn,  Bee,  28thy  1816.' 

^Brooklyn,  Jan.  3,  1817. 
'  To  the  Rev.  Luther  Wilson^ 

*SiR — With  regard  to  the  communication  handed  to 
you  by  Capt.  Tyler,  it  is  my  wish  not  to  have  a  church 
meeting  ;  but  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  Consociation 
for  a  final  decision.  WILLIAM  BARRETT.^ 

"  A  true  copy  from  the  files  of  Consociation. 

"  S.  P.  WILLIAMS." 

The  following  was  the  Result  of  the  Consociation  : 

**  At  a  meeting  of  the  Consociation  of  the  County  o£ 
Windham,  regularly  convened,  in  Brooklyn,  at  the  house 
of  Capt.  Daniel  Tyler,  Feb.  5th,  1817,  A.  M.  to  hear  and 
decide  on  a  complaint  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson, 
junior  pastor  of  the  first  church  in  said  place — 

"  The  following  elders  and  messengers  of  the  churches,, 
present : 

From  the  church  in  North-Mansfield,  Rev.  Moses  C.  Welch,  D.  D. ; 

Uea.  Frederick  Freeman. 
First  church  in  Woodstock,  Rev.  Eliphalet  Lyman  ; 

Dea.  Jedcdiah  Kimball. 
First  church  in  Lebanon,  Rev.  Zebulon  Ely  ; 

Broih.  Joseph  Leach. 
Church  in  South  Society,  Killingly,  Rev.  Israel  Day. 
Second  church  ia  Ash  ford,  Rev.  William  Storrs  ; 

Broth,  Allen  Bosworth. 
First  church  in  Hampton,  Rev.  Ludovicus  Weld  ;  \ 

Dea.  Abijah  Fuller. 
First  church  in  Thompson,  Rev.  Daniel  Dow  ; 

"Dea.  Moses  Bisby. 
Second  church  in  Canterbury,  Rev.  Erasius  Learned  ; 

Broth.  Asa  Burgess. 
¥irst  church  in  Canterbury,  Rev.  Asa  Meach  ; 

Broth.  Joseph  Simms, 


59 

(Presbyterian)  church  in  Mansfield,  Rev.  Samuel  P.  Williams  j 

Dea.  Amasa  Palmer. 
Second  church  in  Woodstock,  Rev.  Alvan  Underwood  ; 

Broth.  John  Perrin. 
Second  church  in  Killingly,  Rev.  Roswell  Whitmore  ; 

Dea.  James  Danielson* 
First  church  in  Pomfret,  Rev.  James  Porter  ; 

Dea.  John  H.  Payson. 
Third  church  in  Woodstock,  Rev.  Samuel  Backus  ; 

Broth.  Rensellaer  Child. 
First  church  in  Windham,  Rev.  Cornelius  B.  Everest ; 

Dea.  Charles  Lee. 

Second  church  in  Pomfret, ;  Dea.  Amasa  Storrs. 

North  church  in  Canterbury, ;  Broth.  Cornelius  Adams. 

Church  in  Plainfield, ;  Dea.  Abel  Andross. 

Church  in  Voluntown, ;  Broth.  Daniel  Campbell. 

Church  in  Chaplin, ;  Broth.  Joseph  Martin. 

*'  The  Consociation  being  organized  by  the  choice  of 
the  Rev.  Moses  C.  Welch,  D.  D.  Moderator,  and  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Williams  and  Dow,  Scribes,  was  opened  with 
praver  by  the  moderator. 

"  Adjourned  till  half  past  one  o'clock,  P.  M.  to  meet  at 
the  meeting-house.  Met  accordingly.  Prayer  by  the 
moderator.  A  request  was  made  by  certain  members  of 
the  church,  by  the  junior  pastor  of  the  church  and  by  a 
committee  of  the  first  ecclesiastical  society  in  Brooklyn, 
respectively,  to  be  heard  by  counsel.*     Granted. 

*'  On  behalf  of  the  members  of  the  church  at  whose  re- 
quest the  Consociation  was  convoked,  a  paper  was  exhib- 
ited, containing  the  charge  of  heresy  against  the  Rev.  Lu- 
ther Willson,  in  denying  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  and 
the  proper  deity  of  Jesus  Christ ;  a  statement  that  the  reg- 
ular steps  of  discipline,  prescribed  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church  in  such  cases,  had  been  used  to  reclaim  him,  with- 
out success ;  and  also  a  request  to  the  church  to  take 
proper  measures  to  bring  the  offender  to  trial. 

*'  It  was  then  stated,  that  for  this  purpose  the  Consocia- 
tion had  been  convened,  before  whom  the  complainant  ap- 
peared, ready  to  substantiate  his  charge. 

"  Against  proceeding  to  trial,  it  was  objected  on  the  part 
of  the  pastor,  and  also  on  the  part  of  the  society,  that  the 
Consociation  have  not  jurisdiction  in  the  case. 

*  Here  is  a  mistake  in  point  of  Fact,  though  undoubtedly  unintentional.  The  Result 
n  not  correct^  in  stating  that  the  society  requested  to  be  heard  by  counsel,  The  (ociety 
bjd  no  counsel ;  none  appealed  ia  their  bshalf  but  their  committee. 


60 

'*The  society,  in  support  of  their  objection,  presented  a 
narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the  several  parties  concern- 
ed during  the  unhappy  difficuhies  of  the  church. 

"  After  a  deliberate,  and,  as  they  trust,  candid  hearing, 
both  of  pastor  and  society,  the  Consociation  came  to  the 
following  Result : — It  appears  from  the  records  of  the 
church  and  the  concessions  of  the  parties,  that  the  church 
in  Brooklyn  was  originally  and  voluntarily  consociated  ; 
that  it  has  acknowledged  this  relation  by  a  series  of  subse- 
quent consociational  acts  ;  and  that  it  has  neither  forfeited 
its  privileges,  or  surrendered  them.  The  constitution  of 
the  churches  does  not  admit,  that  a  consociated  church 
inay  be  deprived  of  its  privileges  by  the  act  of  its  pastor, 
or  of  any  association  of  pastors  ;  but  subjects  the  pastor  of 
such  church,  no  less  than  any  other  member,  to  its  disci- 
pline. It  supposes  every  person  entering  into  connexion 
with  such  church,  acquainted  with  its  government,  and 
solemnly  covci.anting  ta  co-operate  with  it  in  carrying  its 
system  of  discipline  into  effect.  The  Consociation,  there- 
fore, are  unanimously  of  the  opinion,  not  only  that  they 
have  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  but  are  imperiously  bound, 
since  all  the  attempts  to  adjust  the  difficulties  in  the  church 
by  Mutual  Council  have  proved  abortive,  to  listen  to  its 
complaint,*  and,  in  humble  dependence  on  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  endeavour  to  restore  it  to  peace. 

"Adjourned  till  to-morrow,  half  past  8  o'clock,  A.M. 

*'  Feb.  6th — Met  according  to  adjournment :  attended 
to  the  minutes.  Adjourned  to  the  meeting-house  :  pray- 
er by  the  moderator.  Several  members  having  been  chal- 
lenged by  the  accused,  as  having  prejudged  the  case,  were 
examined  and  acquitted. 

"  The  Rev.  Daniel  Dow,  having  requested  from  mo- 
tives of  delicacy  to  be  excused  from  acting  in  Council, 
had  liberty  to  withdraw. 

"  The  counsel  for  the  complainant  proceeded,  after  of- 
fering evidence  that  the  regular  steps  had  been  taken,  to 
support  by  testimony  the  charge  set  forth  in  the  complaint. 
Adjourned  till  2  o'clock.     Met  accordingly.     Attended 

♦The  Result,  referring  to  the  church,  speaks  of  «' its  complaint."  To  prevent 
misapprehension,  I  observe,  that  the  chnrch  did  not  authorize  the  complaint.  They 
had  not  seen  it ;  nor  had  th(y  aoy  agencjr  in  calling  the  Coo&ocution,  or  laying  the 
complaint  before  tbem. 


61 

iui  ihcr  to  testimony.  AdjoLirned  for  one  hour.  Met  ac- 
cording to  adjournment.  Heard  the  accused  at  length  in 
his  own  vindication,  and  the  complainant  by  his  counsel. 
Adjourned  to  the  house  of  Capt.  T3  ler.  Met  according- 
ly.    Deliberated  on  the  case. 

"x\djourned  till  half  past  8  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

**Feb.  7th — Met  according  to  adjournment.  Prayer 
by  the  moderator. 

"  The  Consociation,  having  taken  into  serious  consid- 
eration the  whole  subject  submitted  to  their  decision, 
agreed  in  the  following  result : 

*'  First.  That  the  charge  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Will- 
son  of  denying  the  proper  deity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently  the  mode  of  the  divine 
bubsistence  revealed  in  the  gospel,  is  supported. 

'*  Secondly.  That  the  denial  of  this  doctrine  is  a  depart- 
ure from  the  fliith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

"  Thirdly.  That  this  denial  by  the  Rev.  Luther  Will- 
son  disqualifies  him  for  the  office  of  a  teacher  in  the  Chris- 
tian church ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  rejection  of  an  essential 
part  of  the  counsel  of  God,  a  denial  of  the  record  God  has 
given  of  his  Son. 

'*  Accordingly  his  pastoral  office  in  the  churches  in  our 
fellowship  and  connexion  is  now  declared  to  be  ended,  and 
his  pastoral  relation  to  the  church  in  Brooklyn  in  particu- 
lar ought  to  be,  and  is  hereby  dissolved. 

"  In  this  decision,  the  Consociation  assume  no  right, 
and  take  no  liberty,  other  than  is  common  to  all  men  act- 
ing in  the  same  relation  and  circumstances  ;  the  right  of 
exercising  their  own  judgment,  and  the  liberty  of  obeying 
God.  Painful,  therefore,  as  is  the  duty  they  have  been 
called  to  perform,  to  have  shrunk  from  it,  for  the  con- 
sciousness of  fallibility  ever  to  be  acknowledged,  would 
have  been  virtually  to  annihilate  our  obligations  to  the 
church,  and  to  its  glorious  Head. 

"  While  they  deeply  lament  the  necessity  for  the  course 
they  have  taken,  they  are  supported  by  the  consciousness, 
that  a  supreme  regard  to  their  divine  Lord  and  Master, 
and  a  sincere  desire  to  fulfil  their  covenant  engagements  to 
the  church,  have  guided  and  governed  them  in  that  course. 

"'  Intreating  the  church  and  society  to  cultivate  peace 
on  Christian  principles,  and  tenderly  admonishing  its  latc^ 


62 

pastor  to  return  to  the  Christian  faith,  tliey  commend  you 
iill  to  God,  and  to  the  word  of  his  grace,  which  is  able  to 
build  you  up,  and  make  you  wise  unto  salvation. 

*'  The  following  paper  was  handed  in,  when  the  Result 
was  thus  far  made  up. 

*  To  the  venerable  Ecclesiastical  Council  7iow  convened  at 
Drooklyn.,  to  hear  and  determine  on  a  c/iarge  of  heresy 
iwainst  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson. 

*  We,  the  subscribers,  parties  concerned,  viewing  it 
more  desirable  for  the  interests  of  religion  and  for  the  peace 
of  the  society  in  this  town,  that  the  case  now  under  con- 
sideration should  be  setded  by  a  Mutual  Council,  do  re- 
quest the  Council  now  convened,  to  direct  to  the  choice  of 
such  Coimcil  to  l.car  and  determine  the  case  of  Mr.  Will - 
son.  The  business  of  the  JVIutual  Council  shall  be  to  dis- 
miss Mr.  Willson,  and  set  him  on  such  grounds,  as  to 
ministerial  character,  as  they  may  judge  proper.  The 
Council  to  be  chosen  shall  be  of  such  a  character,  and 
chosen  on  such  principles,  as  shall  be  approved  by  the 
Council  now  convened. 

*  For  Luther  Jfillson^ 

J.NELSON. 

JOSEPH  SCARBOROUGH, 

in  behalf  of  the  aggrieved  Brethren^ 

JOHN  PARISH, 
SHUBAEL  BROWN, 
NATHAN  WITTER,  Jr. 

for  the  Society, '* 

''•  After  consultation  on  this  subject,  the  question.  Will 
you  accede  to  the  above  proposal  ?  was  put,  and  passed  in 
the  affirmative. 

"  Mr.  Willson,  on  his  part,  having,  in  the  apprehension 
of  the  Consociation,  receded  from  the  conciliatory  terms 
in  the  above  agreement,  it  was  voted  that  the  minutes  be 
closed  and  published. 

"  Passed  in  Consociation,  Brooklyn,  7th  February,  1817. 
"  MOSES  C.  WELCH,  Moderator. 
"  SAMUEL  P.  WILLIAMS,  Scribe, 

■  ^'  x\  true  copy  of  the  original  minutes. 

*'  S.  P.  WILLIAMS." 


63 

The  Result  of  the  Consociation  states,  that  "  agakist 
proceeding  to  trial,  it  was  objected  on  the  part  of  the  pas- 
tor, and  also  on  the  part  of  the  society,  that  the  Consocia- 
tion had  not  jurisdiction  in  the  case." 

The  following  was  the  declaration  of  the  pastor  against 
the  authority  of  the  Consociation  to  take  cognizance  of  the 
complaint  : 

"Brooklyn,  Feb.  5,  1817. 
"  To  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Consociated  Churches^ 
of  the  County  of  JVindliam^  now  convened  at  Brooklyn 
to  examine  and  detennine  7ipon  the  charge  of  heresy  a- 
gainst  the  Rev.  Luther  JFiUsony  Junior  Pastor  of  this 
Church. 

*'  The  said  Willson  does  hereby  declare,  that  he  does 
not  consider  himself  amenable  to  this  body,  for  such  rea- 
son, or  reasons,  as  he  shall  think  proper  to  offer. 

"  LUTHER  WILLSON." 

After  the  reasons  were  offered,  and  the  Consociation  de- 
cided that  they  had  jurisdiction,  the  pastor,  still  consider- 
ing his  reasons  against  their  authority  to  be  good,  and  such 
as  ought  to  have  prevailed,  he  repeated  in  substance  the 
protest  which  he  had  made  before  ;  at  the  same  time  re- 
questing liberty  to  appear  before  them  according  to  cir- 
cumstances, as  far  as  their  views  of  propriety  and  their  in- 
dulgence  would  permit. 

''Brooklyn,  Feb.  6th,  1817. 
**  The  subscriber  again  declares  against  the  right  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  this  Ecclesiastical  Council  over  him  for  her- 
esy, or  any  crime  ;  at  the  same  time  begging  leave  to  ap- 
pear before  them,  as  far  as  may  be  proper,  and  as  occasion 
may  require,  while  they  proceed  to  examine  and  deter- 
mine the  charge  of  heresy  presented  against  him  by  Wil- 
liam Barrett,  a  Christian  brother. 

"  LUTHER  WILLSON." 

An  important  objection  made  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Council,  rested  upon  a  vote  of  an  association  of  ministers, 
in  which  the  junior  pastor  of  the  church  in  Brooklyn  con- 
curred, and  in  which  he  formally  and  expressly  declared 
his  dissent  from  the  claims  of  consociation,  aixl  his  adher^ 
ence  to  congregational  principles. 


64 

The  vote  of  the  i.\ssocuition  was  as  follows  : 

"  At  a  meetmg  of  the  Eastern  Association  of  the  Coun- 
ty of  Windham  at  the  h.ouse  of  Rev.  Elisha  Atkins,  in 
Kilhngiy,  Oct.  12,  1813— present, 

Rev.  iMessrs.  JOSIAH  WHITNEY,  D.  D.  MocVr, 
ANDREW^  LEE,  D.  D.  Scribe, 
ELISHA  ATKINS, 
LUTHER  WILLSON. 

*'  A  Consociation  having  lately  been  holclen  in  Canter- 
bury, by  letters  written  by  the  Rev.  Moses  C.  Welsh  and 
Ludovicus  Weld  ;  and  the  churches  under  the  pastoral  care 
of  members  of  this  Association,  residing  in  the  county  of 
Windham,  having  been  called  on  to  send  delegates  to  said 
Consociation  ;  and  as,  in  our  apprehension,  the  design  of 
establishing  a  Consociation  in  said  county  is  to  bring  the 
churches  into  bondage,  on  the  motion  of  the  moderator, 
the  following  expression  of  our  sentiments  on  the  subject 
was  voted  unanimously,  viz. 

"  1.  We  believe  that  every  regular  church  of  Christ  is 
invested  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  \vith  plenary 
povv'er  to  judge,  of  itself,  and  for  itself,  what  is  right  in 
matters  of  faith  and  discipline ;  and  that  neither  churches 
nor  their  pastors  have  power  given  them  of  God,  to  lord  it 
over  one  another,  or  censure  one  another,  because  they 
use  the  power  Christ  hath  given  them. 

'■'■  2.  We  censure  none  because  they  differ  in  opinion 
from  ourselves  respecting  these  matters ;  are  willing  to 
hold  communion  with  them,  to  ask  counsel  of  them,  and 
give  counsel  to  them,  as  occasion  may  require;  but  we 
disclaim  all  right  to  bind  them  by  our  decisions,  or  to  con- 
j:idcr  ourselves  bound  by  theirs,  farther  than  we  judge 
them  agreeable  to  the  divine  rule. 

*'  .3.  We  conceive  it  to  be  our  duty  to  maintain  and  de- 
fend the  liberty  of  the  churches,  and  to  stand  fast  ourselves 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free,  and  not 
5,11  ffer  any  man  or  body  of  men  to  bring  us  into  bondage. 

"4.  As  such  are  our  views,  such  our  understanding  of 
the  scriptures,  we  discard  the  claims  made  by  the  Conso- 
ciations in  this  state,  to  give  law  to  the  churches,  and  to 
judge  for  them  in  matters  of  faith  or  discipline,  and  de- 
clare ourselves  adherents  to  the  congregational  system. 


6d 

*^  The  above  a  true  copy  from  the  records  of  said  Asso- 
ciation. 

«  Test,  ANDREW  LEE,  Scribe:' 

The  counsel  for  Mr.  W.  who  discussed  the  question  of 
Jurisdiction,  has  furnished  the  following  with  his  own 
hand,  as  the  substance  of  the  argument  founded  upon  the 
act  of  Mr.  W.  as  a  member  of  the  Association. 

"  The  above  declaration  of  the  Association,  of  which 
Mr.  Willson  had  become  a  member,  was  a  principal  ground 
of  objection  made  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Consociation 
over  the  junior  pastor  of  tlie  church  in  Brooklyn.  And 
this  was  conceived  to  be  sufficient,  even  if  no  other  objec- 
tions had  been  offered  relative  to  the  same  point.  The  ar- 
gument was  presented  to  the  Consociation  in  the  following 
light. 

"  A  Consociation,  according  to  the  Saybrook  Platform, 
is  composed  of  pastors  and  churches,  who  mutually  and  re- 
spectively agree  to  be  bound  by  the  rules  there  prescribed 
for  such  bodies.  Each  must  be  bound  by  its  own  act,  and 
not  by  the  act  of  the  other.  Granting,  therefore,  that  this 
church  were  now  unquestionably  connected  with  the  Con- 
sociation of  Windham  County,  it  would  not  follow  that  the 
pastor  is  under  its  jurisdiction.  He  is  not,  unless  he  has 
placed  himself  there  by  his  own  act. 

"  That  this  is  not  an  unfounded  assertion,  contrived  up 
merely  for  the  present  occasion,  may  be  shown  from  the 
publick  declaration  of  the  Consociation  in  Tolland  county, 
in  defence  of  their  own  proceedings  in  the  dismission  of 
Mr.  Abbot,  of  Coventry.  In  assigning  the  reasons  why 
their  jurisdiction  extended  to  him,  which  he  had  underta- 
ken to  deny,  in  a  publication  relating  to  the  subject,  they 
say,  (page  il,)  'No  one,  i.  e.  no  minister,  was  formally 
inquired  of,  upon  his  associating  with  a  consociated  body, 
and  receiving  the  charge  of  a  consociated  church,  whether 
he  viewed  himself  as  belon^ng  to  consociation.  It  be- 
longed to  the  individual  formally  to  decline  ;  to  manifest 
that  he  "  differed  or  dissented,"  if  such  were  his  choice. 
The  propriety  of  this  is  admitted  even  by  the  "  statement." 
But  no  such  act  of  his  appears  till  after  the  complaint  of 
his  church ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  every  thing  by  which 
9 


his  brethren  since  1790  expressed  their  *'  consent"  to  be 
considered  of  the  Consociation,  he  conducted  Hke  them.' 

*'  As  this  is  the  hingttage  of  an  Association  in  a  matter 
exactly  similar  to  that  now  before  this  body,  it  will  surely 
be  admitted  as  an  authority  proper  to  be  appealed  to  and  re- 
lied upon.  It  is  admitted,  that  a  pastor  may  dissent  from 
his  church,  *  if  such  be  his  choice,'  as  to  being  in  connex- 
ion with  consociation ;  and  the  reason  why  Mr.  Abbe's 
dissent  was  not  considered  as  valid  by  the  Consociation  of 
Tolland  County,  was,  because  it  came  too  late.  It  was 
ne>t  offered  until  a  complaint  had  been  made  against  him 
to  the  Consociation.  The  acts  by  which  Mr.  Abbot  is 
supposed  to  have  signified  his  consent  to  belong  to,  and  to 
be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Consociation,  are  stated  in 
the  following  quotation  :  *  He  took  charge  of  a  oonsociated 
church,  succeeded  a  consociated  pastor,  and  joined  the  as- 
sociated pastors,  who  in  a  ibrmal  manner  voted,  and  en- 
tered it  upon  their  records,  that  they  formstd  their  body 
according  to  the  general  plan  of  ecclesiastical  polity  adopted 
in  the  Sayhrook  Platform.  Notwithstanding  which,  he  did 
not  follow  the  rule  which  himself  had  sancaoned,  he  did  not 
^'withdraw  or  dissent,"  but  continued  with  the  Association, 
wasappointed  and  acted  as  regibter  oi  the  same  several  years, 
and  by  appointment  attended  as  a  delegate  the  General  As- 
sociation. His  brethren,  therefore,  cor.siderthemselves  and 
him  as  having  belonged  to  consociation,  and  do  not  agree 
with  him,  that  "  it  cannot  admit  of  a  moment's  doubt,  thai 
he  was  independent  of  its  jurisdiction."  ' 

"  Here  we  have  the  reasons  in  full,  why  Mr.  Abbot  was 
claimed  by  the  Consociation  in  Tolland.  They  are  princi- 
pally derived  from  his  connexion  with  the  Association  of 
consociated  pastors,  and  not  manifesting  that  he  dissented 
from  them  with  respect  to  consociation.  If,  then,  these 
were  the  reasons  upon  which  the  Consociation  claimed  ju- 
risdiction over  Mr.  Abbot,  and  the  course  which  he  ought 
to  have  pursued  to  render  himself  independent  of  that  juris- 
diction is  here  pointed  out,  what  can  be  the  ground  of  such 
claim  over  the  junior  pastor  in  Brooklyn  ?  He  has  surely 
dissented  in  language  not  to  be  misunderstood.  He  has 
not  only  not  joined  an  Association  of  consociated  pastors,  as 
did  Mr.  Abbot ;  but  he  has  joined  one  which  said  with 
united  voice,  that  they  *  discard  the  claims  made  bv  tli** 


67 

Consociations  in  this  state,  to  give  law  to  the  churches,  and 
to  judge  for  them  in  matters  either  of  faith  or  discipline;' 
and  which  '  declared  themselves  adherents  to  the  congre- 
gational sjstem.' 

'*  This  declaration  or  dissent  of  the  junior  pastor  of  this 
church  was  made  in  the  most  publick  body  with  which  he 
had  any  connexion,^  It  was  not  delayed  until  a  complaint 
was  entered  against  him,  nor  until  difficulties  began  to  arise 
between  him  and  his  people ;  but  it  was  made  the  first  time 
that  the  subject  was  ever  proposed  to  him ;  at  the  very 
time  that  he  united  with  the  Association  to  which  he  be- 
longed, while  there  was  entire  peace  and  union  between 
him  and  his  church.  By  what  act,  then,  has  he  ever  put 
himself  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  body  ? 

"  Will  it  be  said,  that,  by  taking  charge  of  a  consociated 
church,  in  connexion  with  a  consociated  senior  pastor^  he 
has  thus  shown  his  choice  to  be  of  the  Consociation  ^ 
When  the  junior  pastor,  now  before  you,  was  ordained,  no 
reference  was  had  to  the  Consociation  of  Windham  Coun- 
ty. The  church  in  Brooklyn  had  never  intimated  to  Mr, 
Willson  that  they  considered  tliemselves  as  belonging  to 
it.  And  you  have  evidence  in  this  associational  act,  that 
the  senior  pastor  of  this  church,  whose  ministerial  life  in 
this  place  has  been  more  than  half  the  time  that  Consocia- 
tions have  existed  in  the  state,  held  this  language  to  his 
colleague  from  the  beginning,  *  We  have  no  connexion 
with  any  Consociation.'  For  he  and  all  in  the  Associa- 
tion unite  in  saying,  that  an  attempt  was  then  making  to 
establish  a  Consociation  ;  which  is  to  say,  that  they  consid*. 
ered  the  one  formerly  existing,  as  extinct.  It  was  for  this  rea- 
son that  they  raised  their  voices  against  it,  and  imanimously 
opposed  the  existence  of  a  Consociation  withm  tlieir  limits. 
What  propriety,  then,  could  there  have  been  in  Mr.  Will- 
son's  dissenting  upon  his  ordination  ?  If  the  aged  and  ven- 
erable pastor  of  this  church  was  not  able  to  inform  him, 
whether  they  then  belonged  to  a  Consociation,  who  could 
furnish  the  evidence  ?  Was  it  to  be  expected,  under  such 
circumstances,  that  Mr.  Willson  could  have  had  the  most 
remote  apprehension,  that,  by  settling  in  Brooklyn  in  the 
manner  he  did,  he  consented  to  put  himself  under  the  ju- 
risdiction of  this  body  ?  Has  he  ever  done  a  single  act  by 


6i8 

vVhicti  such  consent  can  be  fairly  inferred  ?*  On  the  cou, 
trary,  has  not  every  act  which  relates  to  the  subject  held 
out  this  language,  *  I  am  not  of  the  Consociation  ?'  Will 
it  then  be  said,  that  there  is  that  kind  of  right  in  this  body 
to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  Mr.  VVillson,  which  they 
could  wish  to  have,  in  case  they  proceed  ?  And  will  they 
proceed  in  the  trial  of  this  cause,  when  it  is  so  contrary  to 
the  wish  of  almost  all  concerned  ?  It  is  believed,  that,  up- 
on due  consideration,  this  body  will  not  view  it  as  expedi^ 
ent  to  attend  to  the  complaint  exhibited  against  the  junior 
pastor  of  this  church.  In  this  belief,  the  subject  is  sub- 
mitted to  your  candid  and  impartial  consideration." 

This  argument,  which  maintains  the  right  of  the  junioi' 
pastor  to  dissent^  in  the  manner  in  which  he  did  dissent,  by 
his  act  in  the  Association  of  which  he  was  a  member,  does 
not  expressly  deny  the  connexion  of  the  church  of  which 
he  was  a  pastor,  with  the  consociated  churches  of  Wind- 
ham county. 

That  the  church  in  Brooklyn  once  belonged  to  the  Con- 
sociation of  the  County  of  Windham,  and  "  had  acknowl- 
edged this  relation  by  a  series  of  consociational  acts,"  was 
not  disputed.  It  was  readily  admitted  by  all  parties.  At 
the  same  time,  important  circumstances  and  considerations 
were  presented  to  the  Council,  which  furnished  presump- 
tive evidence,  that  the  present  Consociation  of  Windham 

*  I  will  here  observe,  that  it  was  stated  before  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn,  that  Mr. 
XK  at  a  church  faceting  manifested  his  assent  to  belocg  to  the  Consociation.  Tt  was 
represented,  that  a  motion  was  once  before  the  church  to  be  unconsociatcd,  and  that 
Mr.  W.  prevented  the  church  from  acting  upon  it. 

The  following  was  the  fact : — The  Rev  Dr.  Whitney,  the  senior  pastor,  a  short  time 
after  the  vote  of  the  Association,  (which  contained  an  entire  dissent  from  the  Con- 
aociation  intended  to  be  tstabliihei  in  the  county,  and  an  express  declaration  in  fa> 
your  of  the  congregational  system,)  brought  forward  a  motion  before  the  church,  sim- 
ilar to  the  one  acted  upon  by  the  Association.  By  this  motion,  the  church  were  called 
upon,  not  to  withdraw  ordisconnect  themselves  from  a  Consociation  to  which  they  be- 
longed ;  but  publickly  to  declare  their  opinion  against  a  consociational  system  of 
government,  and  their  strict  adherence  to  congregational  principles.  When  the  motioa 
was  before  the  church,  one  of  the  brethren  arose,  and  obseived,  that  he  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  Consociations,  and,  for  his  part,  he  wished  for  an  opportunity  to  obtaiit 
information  upon  the  subject  before  he  acted.  Upon  this,  Mr.  W.  the  junior  pastor, 
pbserved,  that  if  any  mrmber  of  the  church  wished  particularly  for  information  upon 
the  subject,  it  was  reasonable  and  proper  that  he  should  have  time  to  obtain  it.  It  was 
said,  that,  in  consequence  of  this  observation  of  the  junior  pastor,  the  motion  was  not 
acted  upon.  The  meeting  was  dissolved;  and,  as  th«  church  from  that  time  ne\'cr  re- 
<;eived  any  letter  to  meet  in  Consociation,  the  subject  was  never  called  up  afterwards, 
until  the  difHculty  respecting  Mr.  W.'s  change  of  sentiments  had  commenced.  Mr.  W. 
the  junior  pastor,  gave  do  opinion  in  favour  of  consociation  ;  nor  did  he  iatimate  that 
fie  considered  the  church  consociated*  This  is  the  act  of  Mr.  W«  by  which  he  is  nid 
tohtvc  a^snited  to  be  of  the  Coniociation. 


69 

County  Wci3  not  the  same  as  that  which  existed  half  a  cen- 
tury before  ;  and,  consequently,  that  the  church  in  Brook- 
lyn, which  had  in  no  instance  sent  messengers  to  the  pres- 
ent Consociation,  or  in  any  manner  acknowledged  its  au- 
thority, could  not  be  considered  as  belonging  to  it,  or  any 
of  its  members  as  subject  to  its  jurisdiction.  I  shall  not 
here  be  at  pains  to  note  the  particulars  that  were  then  pre- 
sented, but  shall  enter  immediately  upon  the  examination 
of  documents,  with  which  I  was  then  unacquainted,  which 
are  now  in  my  possession,  and  which  furnish  satisfactory 
and  conclusive  evidence,  distinct  from  any  thing  that  is 
yet  brought  into  view,  that  the  Consociation  had  not  juris- 
diction in  the  case. 

I,  We  have  the  opinion  of  a  convention  of  ministers  and 
delegates  from  the  churches  of  Windham  Original  Asso- 
ciation, in  the  year  18Q0,  that  there  was  then  no  Consocia- 
tion in  the  county  ;  that  some  visible  bond  of  social  imiou 
among  the  churches  was  much  needed,  to  unite  their  views 
and  interests,  and  to  promote  their  particular  and  general 
welfare.  The  convention,  in  pursuance  of  an  object  so 
desirable  as  the  purity,  union,  and  prosperity  of  the  church- 
es, adopted  and  recommended  a  Plan  of  Consociation  ma- 
terially different  from  the  system  of  consociation  formerly 
established  by  the  constitution  of  the  churches,  called  Say- 
brook  Platform.  This  plan  was  adopted  and  published  by 
the  convention,  accompanied  with  an  address,  recommend- 
ing it  to  the  approbation  and  acceptance  of  the  several 
churches  within  their  limits ;  but  it  never  went  into  effect ; 
it  was  not  adopted  by  the  churches  to  which  it  was  pro- 
posed. It,  however,  furnishes  the  clear  and  decided  opin- 
ion of  the  ministers  and  delegates  of  most  of  the  churches 
in  the  county  of  Windham,  that  they  were  not  then  con- 
nected with  a  Consociation,  but  were  solicitous  that  a  sys- 
tem of  consociation,  or  some  visible  bond  of  social  union, 
should  be  established  among  them. 

The  following  is  the  plan  recommended  by  the  conven- 
tion in  1800  : 

"  A  Plan  of  Consociation  adopted  and  recommended  by  a  CoU' 
vention  of  Churches  in  JVindham  County ^  A'by.  1800. 

"  The  subject  of  Consociation,  or  some  visible  bond  of 
social  union  among  our  churches,  having  been,  for  years, 
a   matter  of    serious    consideration  with  the    associated 


70 

ministers  of  Windham  county,  tliey,  at  length,  agreed  on 
a  special  meeting  for  that  purpose,  and  thrit  the  churches 
be  requested  to  attend  by  delegation.  A  circular  letter 
was,  accordingly,  prepared,  and  sent  to  the  several  church- 
es, requesting  them,  individually,  to  send  a  delegate,  to 
meet  in  convention,  for  the  purpose  of  deliberating  on  this 
important  business.  The  motion  meeting  the  approbation 
of  every  church  to  whom  a  letter  was  addressed,  the  con- 
vention met,  and  tlie  following  is  the  remit  of  their  deiib- 
trations : 

"  At  a  convention  of  the  ministers  of  the  original  Asso- 
ciation of  Windham  county,  with  delegates  from  the  seve- 
ral churches,  at  Mansfield,  Nov.  11,  1800,  for  the  purpose 
of  conferring  on  a  mode  of  Consociation,  or  some  visible 
bond  of  social  union  among  our  churches,  there  were 
present, 

Pastors.  Delegates  from  ihc  churches* 

!?er.  Ms.SBTS.T.bDnms  Brockiaay,  MoJV. 

Moften  C.  Welch,  Scribe,  Brother  Frederick  Freemari^ 

John  Giirlcy,  Deacon  Daniel  Abelf 

.'Andrew  Judson,  Deac.  JVoah  Fain, 

Elijihalct  Lymartf  Dcac.  Jedidiah  Morse, 

Walter  Lyon,  Deac.  Joshua  Grosvenory 

Knock  Fond,  Brother  Isaac  Kendall, 

Zehulon  Ely,  Brother  Solomon  Williamsj 

Israel  Day,  Brother  David  Cady-, 

William  Graves,  Deac.  jiaron  Lyon, 

William  Storrs,  Deac.  William  Walker, 

Jjudovicus  Weld,  Brother  William  Hundngtonf 

Elijah  WaterrnaUf  Deac-  Thomas  Tileston, 

John  Sherman,  Brother  Benjamin  Storrs, 

Daniel  Doiv,  Brother  Thomas  Dyke,  and 
[ We stWoodstock  vacant.]  Brother  Ebenezer  Smith. 

"  The  moderator  opened  the  convention  by  prayer  ;  af- 
ter which  they  adjourned  to  attend  publick  worship,  and 
to  proceed  to  business  immediately  after  divine  service. 

'•"Met  accordingly,  and  continued  the  session,  by  ad- 
journment, until  the  evening  of  Nov.  12th,  during  which, 
alter  solemn  addresses  to  the  Father  of  Light,  for  counsel 
and  direction  in  the  important  affair,  a  Plan  of  Consocia- 
tion was  exhibited,  and  seriously  discussed,  consisting  of  the 
following  articles  : 

'^Article  I.  The  Consociation  shall  consist  of  those 
pastors  ajid  churches,  by  delegation,  who  agree  to  adopt 


71 

{his  and  the  following  articles  ;  which  shall  be  the  consti- 
tution of  church  government  for  the  Consociation  ot' 
Windham  County,  and  shall  go  into  operation  when  nine 
churches  shall  agree  to  and  adopt  the  same. 

**  Art.  II.  Every  church  that  has  a  settled  pastor 
shall  be  represented  by  one  ruling  elder  or  delegate,  to  be 
chosen  annually.  Every  church  that  has  no  settled  min- 
iscer,  and  is  wishing  to  support  one,  shall  be  entitled  to  be 
represented  by  one  ruling  elder  or  delegate.  The  elders 
o.  delegates  not  known,  shall  produce  certificates  from  the 
churches  which  they  represent. 

"Art.  III.  A  majority  of  the  Consociation  shall  be 
competent  to  the  dispatch  of  business. 

"Art.  IV.  A  Moderator  shall  be  chosen  by  ballot, 
who  sliali  continue  in  office  one  year  ;  a  Scribe  to  minute 
the  doings,  and  reasons  of  any  judgment  that  may  be  ren- 
dered ;  and  a  standing  Register  to  record  the  same.  Any 
other  officers  that  may  be  found  necessary  and  convenient, 
shall  be  annually  appointed. 

"  Art.  V.     The  Consociation  shall  have  cognizance  of 
all  things  that  regard  the  welfare  of  the  particular  churches 
belonging  to  the  body. 
"  Particularly, 

"  1.  They  shall  be  considered  as  having  the  right,  at  aM 

times,  to  originate,  and  adopt,  for  themselves,  and  propose 

to  the  churches,  any  rules  or  regulations,  which  they  may 

judge  to  be  calculated  for  the  edification  and  well  ordering 

of  the  same. 

"2.  It  shall  be  considered  as  their  duty  to  assist  the 
pastors  and  churches  of  the  body,  by  their  counsel  and  ad- 
vice, in  aay  cases  of  difficulty,  when  applied  to  for  the 
purpose. 

"  3.  rhey  shall  have  a  right  to  censure  irreclaimable 
pastors,  churches,  or  individual  members  of  the  churches 
of  the  body,  who  fall  into  heretical  sentiments,  or  scanda- 
lous immoralities,  upon  complaints  regularly  laid  before 
them. 

"  4.  A  complaint  cannot  be  received  by  this  body,  or 
considered  as  coming  regulaily  before  them,  unless  the 
previous  steps  have  been  taken,  pointed  out  by  our  Lord, 
in  Mat.  xviii,  15,  16,  17. 


72 

**  5.  Wiien  a  member  of  any  particular  cluircli,  belong' 
ing  to  this  body,  shall  view  himself  aggrieved,  or  injured, 
by  his  being  laid  under  censure,  he  shall  have  the  right  of 
appeal  to  the  Consociation. 

"Art.  VI.  Pastors  elected  by  churches  belonging  to 
the  Consociation,  shall,  previously  to  their  ordination,  be 
approved  by  the  body,  or  their  committee.  The  Conso- 
ciation shall  also  examine  and  approbate  candidates  for  the 
gospel  ministry. 

**  Art.  VII.  In  Consociation  every  member  shall  have 
an  equal  vote. 

"Art.  VIII.  The  Consociation  shall  meet,  annually, 
on  the  first  Tuesday  in  September ;  at  which  meeting  a 
sermon  shall  be  delivered.  And  when  any  emergency 
shall  require,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  moderator,  or,  in 
case  of  his  absence,  the  senior  pastor,  with  the  advice  of 
one  other  member,  by  a  circular  letter,  stating  the  busi* 
ness,  addressed  to  each  minister,  or  delegate,  where  the 
church  is  vacant,  to  convene  the  body,  at  a  time  not  less 
than  ten  days  after  notice.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the 
person,  or  persons,  who  apply  for  such  special  meeting, 
seasonably  to  convey  the  letters. 

"  Art.  IX.  At  the  annual  meeting,  the  members  shall 
report  to  the  body  the  state  of  religion  in  each  particular 
church,  viz.  the  number  of  its  members,  additions,  dimi- 
nutions by  death,  excommunication,  or  otherways,  the 
preceding  year. 

"  Art.  X.  The  foregoing  articles  may  be  amended  by 
calling  a  special  convention,  whenever  a  majority  of  the 
churches  shall  signify  their  desire  for  the  same  to  the  Con  - 
sociation.  And  in  case  of  emendations  agreed  upon  by 
such  convention,  they  shall  be  referred  to  the  individual 
churches  for  their  adoption,  and  when  adopted  unanimous- 
ly by  them,  shall  become  a  part  of  this  constitution. 

"  Foted,  unanimously,  in  convention,  that  we  agree  tc- 
the  foregoing  articles,  as  a  system  of  church  government 
agreeable  to  the  word  of  God ;  and  they  are  accordingly 
recommended  to  the  several  churches  for  their  concur- 
rence and  adoption. 

"^  yoted^  to  appoint  Messrs.  Welch,  Eli/y  Waterman^ 
Sherman,  Dow,  IVilhams  and  Freeman,  a  committee  to 
correct,  and  prepare  this  result  for  the  press,  and  procure 


^3 

a  publication  of  tlie  same,  together  with  some  arguments 
and  scripture  proof  in  support  of  it ;  and,  also,  to  add  a  se- 
rious address  to  the  churches,  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
union  and  fellowship. 

"Attest,         THOMAS  BROCKWAY,  Mod'r, 
MOSES  C.  WELCH,  Scribe:' 

In  looking  over  this  Constitution,  regarding  it  as  a  me- 
morial of  the  wisdom  and  piety  of  this  large  and  respecta- 
ble convention,  we  are  led  to  ask,  why  this  solicitude  for 
years  to  form  and  establish  a  Consociation  in  Windham 
county,  or  some  visible  bond  of  union  among  the  church- 
es, if  the  churches  were  then  in  possession  of  a  system  of 
Consociation,  voluntarily  adopted,  and  sanctioned  nearly  a 
century  before,  by  the  highest  ecclesiastical  and  civil  au- 
thority ?    Was  it  possible  that  these  ministers  and  dele- 
gates  (many  or  most  of  them)  when  forming  this  Constitu- 
tion, and  recommending  it  to  the  several  churches  for  their 
adoption,  were  actually  consociated  according  to  the  plan 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  contained  in  Saybrook  Platform  ?  If 
they  were  thus  consociated,  in  what  light  are  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  convention  to  be  viewed  ?    Surely  they  must 
bear  the  character  of  open  hostility  to  the  ecclesiastical 
constitution  of  the  state.     But  will  any  believe  that  the 
members  of  this  convention  were  thus  employed  in  pre- 
paring and  recommending  a  plan  of  Consociation,  when,  at 
that  very  moment,  they  knew  that  their  churches  were  con- 
sociated, and  were  bound  to  maintain  an  inviolable  regard 
to  that  system  of  union,  government,  and  discipline,  con- 
tained in  their  ancient  constitution?   None  will  believe 
this.     We  therefore  conclude,  that,  when  these  fifteen  pas-^ 
tors  and  as  many  delegates  unanimously  adopted  and  rec= 
ommended  to  the  churches  a  plan  of  Consociation,  or  a  vis- 
ible bond  of  social   union,  they  wTre  unanimously  of  the 
opinion,  that  the  Consociation,  v/hich  once  existed,  had 
sometime  become  extinct,  and  that,   consequently,  they 
were  at  liberty  to  form  one  upon  such  principles  as  appear- 
ed best  adapted  to  promote  the  union,  order,  and  general 
interest  of  the  churches. 

The  proceedings  of  this  convention  furnish  the  best 
evidence  that  we  could  have  of  the  united  opinion  of  min- 
isters and   churches,  that  in  the  year  1800  tliere  wa?  no 

10 


Consociation  in  Windham  county,  no  bond  of  social  unioa 
among  the  churches,  no  constitution  of  church  govern- 
ment, by  which  the  "  churches  were  consociated  for  mutu- 
al  affording  to  each  other  such  assistance  as  might  be  req[- 
uisite  upon  all  occasions  ecclesiastical."*  And  if,  as  is 
evident  from  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  convention, 
there  was  no  Consociation  in  Windham  county  in  the  year 
1800,  '^hen  the  present  Consociation  must  have  been  form- 
ed and  established  since,  and  could  have  no  more  juris-- 
diction  over  a  pastor  G<f  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  or  any  of 
its  members,  than  over  a  pastor  or  member  of  a  church  in 
a  neighbouring  state  i  For  the  church  in  Brooklyn  had 
formed  no  connexion  with  this,  or  any  ecclesiastical  body 
of  that  name,  since  the  year  1800,  any  more  than  with  a 
presbytery  of  the  stale  of  New- Yoik  or  Pennsylvania  ;  and 
both  the  pastors,  the  senior  as  well  ^s  junior^  had  formally 
and  expressly  declared  their  dissent  from  any  system  cf 
Consociation  intended  to  be  established  in  their  immediate, 
vicinity.. 

IL  I  shall  now  examine  and  compare  extracts  from  ac- 
thentick  records,  from  which  it  will  appear  that  the  pres- 
ent Consociation  is  not  the  same  as  formerly  ;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  the  church  in  Brooklyn  had  no  connexion 
with  the  council  of  churches,  that  took  cognizance  of  the 
complaint  against  their  pastor. 

There  is  no  question  that  the  church  in  Brooklyn  was 
once  consociated  according  to  the  articles  for  the  adminis- 
tration ot  church  discipline  contained  in  Say  brook  Plat- 
form. When  the  Consociation  of  Windham  County,  to 
which  the  church  in  Brooklyn  belonged,  and  which  was. 
established  agreeably  to  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  constitu- 
tion of  the  state,  ceased  to  exist,  I  am  not  solicitous  ta 
know.  It  is  sufficient,  to  be  informed  from  the  proceed- 
ings and  zmitcd  opinion  of  the  numerous  and  respectab,le 
convention  of  18.00,  that  it  was  not  in  existence  then  ;  anjd 

*  If  tlic  "  churches  were  consociated  for  mutual  affording  to  each  other  such  assist.* 
arce  as  might  be  requisite  upon  all  occasions  ecclesiastical,"  (see  the  second  article  of 
church  discipline,  at  ilie  close  ot  ihis  Review,)  why  was  ihis  convention  employed 
in  planning  a  Consociation,  or  informing  a  visible  bond  of  social  union,  a  constitution 
ot  church  government,  when,  in  fact,  they  virrc  contociated,  when  they  had  an  eccltji- 
nslical  constitution,  a  visible  bond  of  union  ?  To  this  question  I  am  persuaded  no  an- 
swer can  be  given.  I  theretoie  conclude  beyoijd  a  doubt,  that  the  convention  («h;r> 
employed  in  planning  and  recommending  a  system  ot  Consociation)  did  not  considc:. 
thf-  churches  as  consori.itcd  as  having^  a  constituli:^ ,  a  visible  lend  of  social  union. 


lalso  to  know,  that  the  church  in  Brooklyn  from  that  time 
(and  how  much  longer  I  shall  not  inquire)  had  not  been 
connected  with  any  Consociation  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of 
the  junior  pastor. 

The  first  Consociation  of  which  wc  have  any  account 
since  the  convention  of  churches  in  1800,  was  in  the  year 
1812,  in  Eastford  society  inAshford.  From  the  book  of  rec- 
ords kept  by  the  Consociation,  the  following  is  extracted : 

"  At  a  Consociation  of  the  churches  of  Windham  Orig- 
inal Association,*- coiivened  by  letters  missive  at  the  house 
of  Ephraim  Spaulding,  in  Eastford  society  in  Ashfordj 
Dec.  22,  1812— present,  &c. 

"  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Consociation  was  objected  to. 
The  question  being  submitted,  whether  the  church  in 
Eastford  and  its  pastor  are  in  regular  connexion  with  the 
consociated  churches,  voted  in  the  affirmative." 

This  Consociation  was  called  to  judge  upon  a  complaint 
of  a  member  of  the  church  against  the  pastor.  How  it 
was  formed,  or  on  what  jjrinciple  jurisdiction  was  claimed, 
I  know  not.  The  records  do  not  furnish  the  information ; 
nor  have  I  received  it  from  any  other  source. 

Tlie  next  meeting  of  a  Consociation  was  at  Canterbury. 

*'  At  a  regular  meeting  of  the  Consociation  of  Windham 
County,  convened  at  the  meeting-house  in  the  first  society 
in  Canterbury,  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  October,  1813, 
there  v/ere  present,"  &c* 

I  have  good  reason  to  believe,  from  various  considera- 
tions, that  the  present  Consociation  of  Windliam  County 
was  formed  at  Canterbury  in  October,  1813. 

1.  It  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  records,  that  the 
Consociation  at  Canterbury,  nine  months  after  the  meeting 
at  Eastford,  was  not  the  same  as  tliat  at  Eastford  nine 
months  before. 

The  council  at  Eastford  Vv'as  a  *'  Consociation  of  the 
churches  of  IVindham  Original  Association,'''*     The  council 

•There  were  two  Associations  in  the  county  of  Windham — the  Original  and  the 
EaiUrn.  The  chuich  in  Brooklyn  belonged  to  the  Eastern  Association  ;  they  could  not, 
therefore,  belong  to  ihe  Consociation  at  Eastford,  because  this  Consociation  included 
only  the  churches  of  the  Original  Association.  The  church  in  Brooklyn,  therefore,  was 
necessarily  excluded  from  the  CoQJociation  at  Eastford,  aad  had  oo  igtter  sent  to  them 
tJU  meet  ia  that  council. 


76 

at  Canterbury  was  "  the  Consociation  of  Wmdham  County,'^ 
The  former  was  limited  to  the  churches  of  a  particular  As- 
sociation ;  and  in  consequence  of  this,  several  churches  in 
the  county  (the  church  in  Brooklyn  among  the  number) 
were  necessarily  excluded.  The  latter  was  so  designated 
as  to  include  all  the  churches  in  the  county  that  should 
choose  to  become  connected  with  it. 

2.  If  the  Consociation  at  Canterbury,  in  October,  was 
the  same  as  that  at  Eastford  in  December  before,  it  was 
manifestly  irregular  in  its  appointment.  This  none  will 
deny ;  for  the  irregularity  was  such  as  could  not  have 
occurred,  in  the  opinion  of  any  one  conversant  with  Say- 
brook  Platform,  through  inadvertence,  or  mere  mistake* 
The  Platform  very  plainly  made  it  the  duty  of  the  mode- 
rator of  the  last  meeting  of  the  Council,  if  he  were  living, 
w'lxh  the  advice  and  consent  of  two  more  elders,  to  call  a 
Council  (or  Consociation)  when  they  should  judge  there 
was  need  of  it.  "  That  member  who  was  chosen  at  the 
last  session  of  any  Council  to  be  moderator,  shall,  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  two  more  elders,  (or,  in  case  of  the 
moderator's  death,  any  two  elders  of  the  same  Consocia- 
tion,) call  another  Council  within  the  circuit,  when  they 
shall  judge  there  is  need  thereof."*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Welch, 
of  Mansfield,  was  moderator  of  the  Council  at  Eastford. 
It  was  therefore  his  duty  as  moderator,  as  he  was  living, 
with  the  concurrence  of  two  more  elders,  when  they  saw 
there  was  need  of  a  Council  at  Canterbury,  to  appoint  a 
meeting,  and  call  the  consociated  churches  together.  But 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Welch  did  not  appoint  the  meeting  at  Can- 
terbury as  moderator  of  the  last  Council,  as  the  Platform 
directs.  The  Rev.  Moses  C.  Welch  and  Ludovicus  Weld 
(claiming  no  official  authority)  sent  out  letters  to  all,  or 
nearly  all  the  churches  in  the  county,  desiring  or  request- 
ing them  to  meet  in  Consociation  at  Canterbury. 

On  the  supposition  that  a  Consociation  was  theti  formed 
without  any  regard  to  its  connexion  with  the  Council  at 
Eastford,  these  ministers  considering  this  Council  evi- 
dently irregular,  and  therefore  of  no  account,!  might  send 

•See  the  loth  article  of  discipline. 

+  These  gentlemen  probably  iinew,  that  the  Consociation  at  Eastford  was  irregnh^t 

because  (sccording   to  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  convention  in  1800,  of  which 

they  wcic  members)  at  the  time  of  its  appointment  there  was  do  Consociation  in  the 

'County.     And,  evea  if,  at  that  titDc,  there  wa<  a  Coasociation  ia  ehe  county,  the  Coan^ 


n 

out  letters  as  they  did,  not  signing  them  officially  as  be- 
longing to  a  Consociation,  without  any  impropriety,  or  the 
violation  of  any  rule  ;  and  all  the  churches,  or  any  of  them, 
that  came  together,  whether  formerly  consociated  or  not, 
might  join  in  Consociation  according  to  the  tenour  of  the 
letter,  call  it  a  regular  meeting,  proceed  to  business,  and 
make  any  appointments  or  arrangements  for  the  future, 
that  they  should  think  necessary  and  proper. 

3.  The  Rev.  gentlemen  that  wrote  to  the  churches  to 
meet  and  join  in  Consociation,  sent  letters  to  several 
churches,  who  were  knov/n  never  to  have  had  any  connex- 
ion with  Say  brook  Platform,  or  a  consociational  form  of 
government,  but  to  have  adopted  a  different  constitution, 
or  to  have  had  no  constitution,  other  than  the  Bible,  and 
that  which  they  had  formed  for  themselves.  And  can  any 
believe,  that  these  rentlemen,  when  sendino:  out  their  let- 
ters,  considered  themselves  as  acting  in  an  official  capacity, 
and  authorized  by  Saybrook  Platform  to  notify  churches  to 
meet  and  act  in  Consociation,  which,  from  their  establish- 
ment, had  no  more  been  consociated  than  the  churches  in 
Rhode-Island  or  Massachusetts?  This  is  incredible.  It 
is  not  within  the  limits  of  probability  or  conjecture,  that 
these  gentlemen,  who  published  their  opinion  in  1800,  that 
no  Consociation  existed  in  the  county,  assumed  to  them- 
selves, in  1813,  the  authority  and  responsibility  of  calling 
together  churches  that  were  never  consociated,  to  sit  and 
act  in  a  Consociation  that  had  long  been  established  by  a 
particular  constitution. 

The  conclusion  therefore  is  this.  These  ministers,  and 
many  others,  had  no  doubt  been  anxious  for  years,  that  a 
Consociation,  or  some  visible  bond  of  union  among  the 
churches,  should  be  established  in  the  county.  They  had 
made  an  attempt  in  1800,  and  failed.  But  the  object  was 
too  important  to  be  given  up.  A  council  of  the  churches^ 
claiming  to  be  a  Consociation,  (on  what  principle  it  is  not 
easy  to  imagine,)  met  at  Eastford ;  but  its  limits  extended 

cil  at  Eastford  was  evidently  irregular,  according  to  Ssyirook  Platform  ;  and  therefore 
they  did  not  think  it  proper  cfidaUy  to  appoint  a  Consociation  at  Canterbury  on  the 
ground  of  its  connexion  with  the  Council  at  Eastford.  The  Council  at  Eastford  could 
not  have  b^en  a  regular  ecclesiastical  tribunal  according  to  Saybrook  PUtform..  because 
one  church  (if  not  more)  that  was  represented  in  that  Council,  had  never  adopted  this 
Platform  ;  but  was  originally  established  by  vote,  and  had  continued,  upon  Cambridge 
Platform,  a  constitution  of  church  discipliaej  essactially  diifcrsol  from  the  constitution 
foimed  at  Saybrook. 


no  farther  than  a  particular  association  of  ministers.  A 
considerable  number  of  churches,  some  once  consociated, 
and  others  separate,  congregational,  or  upon  Cambridge 
Platform,  were  not  included.  As  a  general  union  in  faith, 
order,  and  discrpline,  was  a  favourite  ol^ject  with  many  of 
the  ckrgy  as  well  as  laity,  it  was  probably  thought  desira- 
ble to  extend  the  privilege  of  such  union  to  all  the  church- 
es in  the  county,  that  were  in  imm.ediate  fellowship,  and 
that  v^'ould  agree  thus  to  unite.  The  Rev.  Messrs.  Welch 
and  Wekl,  in  all  probability,  from  the  influence  of  these 
principles  and  views,  and  v/ith  an  assurance  of  the  concur- 
rent approbation  and  influence  of  many,  who  felt  an  inter- 
«fst  in  the  same  benevolent  object,  wrote  tp  the  several 
churches  in  the  county,  (w  hether  formerly  consociated  or 
not,)  requesting  them  to  meet  in  Consociation  at  Canter- 
bury. These  gentlemen  very  prudently  sent  out  their  let- 
ters (if  I  am  not  mistaken  in  my  recollection)  not  in  terms 
of  official  authority^  as  members  of  a  Consociation,  but  ia 
the  capacity  of  individuals. 

A  letter  was  sent  to  the  church  in  Brooklvn.  It  was  in 
the  care  of  the  senior  pastor  ;  but  being  overlooked  or  for- 
gotten at  the  proper  time  to  read  it  publiekly,  it  was  not 
communicated  to  the  church. 

4.  Another  circumstance  worthy  of  notice,  was  the  subse- 
quent omission  of  sending  letters  to  the  church  m  Brooklyn. 
The  Consociation  voted  at  Canterbury,  that  they  would 
henceforward  meet  annually.  The  first  annual  meeting  was 
at  Lebanon  ;  the  next  at  Thompson.  The  church  in  Brook- 
lyn, that  was  requested  to  send  a  messenger  or  delegate  to 
join  the  meeting  at  Canterbury,  received  no  notice  to  meet 
at  Lebanon  or  Thompson.  No  letter  was  sent.  Why 
this  omission — why  this  neglect,  if  the  church  in  Brooklyn 
belonged  to  the  Consociation  ?  Was  it  not  well  known  to 
the  moderator,  when  he  appointed  these  several  meetings, 
that  the  church  in  Brooklyn  was  formerly  consociated  ? 
Was  not  the  name  of  the  Rev.  Josiah  Whitney,  a  pastor  of 
iht  church,  before  the  publick,  (in  a  late  publication  in  the 
iieighbourhood  of  the  moderator,)  as  a  member  of  the  Con- 
sociation of  Windham  County,  Avhich  met  at  Coventry  in 
1761? 

ii  the  Consociation  at  Lebanon  or  Thompson  was  the 
same  as  that  at  Coventry,  the  church  in  Brooklyn   would 


Ir9 

as  certainly  have  been  called  upon  lo  send  a  mes- 
senger or  delegate,  as  any  other  church  in  the  county* 
But  the  church  in  Brooklyn  was  not  notified  to  send  a 
messenger  to  either  of  these  meetin-i^s.  These  circum- 
stances furnish  a  strong  presumption  that  the  present  Con^ 
sociation  is  not  the  same  as  that  at  Coventry  in  the  year 
1761.  If  it  had  been  the  same,  the  church  in  Brooklyn 
would  have  received  due  notification  v/ith  others.  But  on 
the  supposition  that  the  present  Consociation  commenced 
its  existence  and  operations  at  Canterbury,  we  account  for 
the  omission  of  Brooklyn  in  after  appointments.  The 
church  in  Brooklyn,  not  sending  a  delegate  agreeably  t& 
the  request  of  Messrs.  Welch  and  Weld,  the  moderator 
would  easily  conclude,  that  they  were  not  disposed  to  joia 
the  Consociation,  and  consequently  it  would  be  of  no  use 
to  send  to  them  again.  If  the  church  in  Brooklyn  was. 
consociated,  it  was  certainly  incumbent  upon  the  modera- 
tor, in  appointing  the  meeting  at  Lebanon,  and  also  at 
Thompson,  to  give  due  notice  to  this  consociated  clmrclv 
and  call  upon  them,  to  send  a  delegate.  Otherwise  the 
meeting,  in  both  cases,  must  have  been  irregular.  Surely 
the  moderator  cannot  be  charg-eable  with  such  an  oversis:ht: 
or  neglect.  Some  of  these  circumstiiuces,  not  the  least 
important,  were  offered  to  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn  as 
an  objection,  and  were  considered  by  the  pastor  as  afford- 
ing presumptive  evidence  against  their  jurisdiction. 

5.  I  shall  now  bring  into  view  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
sociation at  Thompson  in  October,  1815,  from  which  i* 
will  appear,  that  the.  present  Consociation  is  not  the  samt 
as  formerly o. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  Consociation  of  Windham  Coun- 
ty in  Thompson,  October  3,  1815 — 

"  Votedy  That  this  Consociation,  formed  generally  on 
the  plan  usually  styled  Saybrook  Platform,  put  such  a  con- 
struction on  the  4th  article  of  discipline,  as  shall  allow  ev- 
ery church  to  send  only  one  messenger  or  delegate  ;  which 
delegate  shall  have  an  equal  vote  with  an  elcfer  or  pastor. 

"  \\\  consequence  of  the  above  vote,  the  Rev.  Eliphalet 
Lyman,  and  Jonatlian  Morse  delegate,  from  the  first  church 
in  Woodstock,  and  the  Rev.  HoUis  Sampson,  and  Abiiah 
Dean  delegate;  froiu  th>e  second  church  in  Ashford^  e;;  • 


80 

liibited  their  credentials,  and  took  their  seats  as  members 
of  the  Consociation." 

The  Consociation,  at  this  meeting,  furnish  the  informa- 
tion, that  it  was  formed  generally  upon  Saybrook  Plat- 
form ;  and  they  aj^ree  to  put  such  a  construction  upon  a 
particular  article  of  discipline  as  to  limit  every  church  be- 
longing to  it  to  the  representation  of  one  messenger,  and  as 
to  grant  to  each  messenger  an  equal  vote  with  an  elder  ; 
whereas  the  article  itself,  in  language  too  plain  to  be  mis- 
understood, allows  a  church  to  send  more  than  one  mes- 
senger, and  does  not  allow  a  messenger  an  equal  vote  with 
an  elder.  The  Consociation,  to  make  way  for  the  admis- 
sion of  churches  into  their  union,  that  would  not  become 
consociated  without  an  accommodation  to  their  views,  put 
what  they  call  a  construction  upon  an  article  of  discipline, 
directly  contrary  to  its  obvious  and  undisputed  meaning  ; 
and  also  to  make  way  for  the  construction,  which  the  terms 
of  the  article  could  not  possibly  admit,  they  declare  the 
Consociation  to  have  been  formed  generally  (not  entirely 
and  exclusively)  upon  the  plan  usually  styled  Saybrook 
Platform. 

The  qualifying  term  generally  was  evidently  used  to 
show,  that  this  Consociation,  when  it  was  formed,  though 
it  adopted  Saybrook  Platform,  as  a  constitution  of  church 
government,  upon  general  principles,  in  preference  to 
forming  one  essentially  neiv^  did  not  bind  themselves  to 
adhere  to  it  invariably,  according  to  its  true  meaning ;  but 
considered  themselves  at  liberty,  in  some  instances  at  least, 
to  deviate,  to  omit,  to  alter,  and  ptobably  to  add,  as  par- 
ticular circumstances  and  the  interest  of  religion  might 
render  it  necessary  or  expedient. 

Suppose  this  Consociation  to  be  the  same  as  that  which 
was  knov/n  in  the  county  half  a  century  before  ;  what  was 
the  necessity  of  giving  publick  information,  at  this  late  pe- 
liod,  that  it  was  formed  upon  Saybrook  Platform  ?  Did 
any  one  ever  imagine,  that  the  Consociation  of  Windham. 
County  was  formed  upon  any  other  platform  ?  If  not,  what 
was  the  propriety  (not  to  say  necessity)  of  a  vote,  contain- 
ing information  of  a  fact,  that  was  never  disputed  ?  Con- 
tinuinp-  the  supposition,  that  this  Consociation  was  the 
same  as  formerly,  I  would  further  inquire,  by  what  means 


81 

its  members,  at  Thompson,  had  ascertained,  that  it  was 
formed  upon  Saybrook  Platform  in  a  restricted  and  quali- 
jied  sense  ;  not  wholly  and  exclusively,  but  only  generally? 
To  what  ancient  records  had  they  access,  by  which  they  came 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  important  fact,  that  the  Consocia- 
tion of  the  County  of  Windham,  in  its  earliest  establishment, 
did  not  adopt  the  ecclesiastical  constitution  of  the  state, 
uhsolutely  and  without  reserve  ?  Let  them  bring  forward 
an  authentick  record,  from  which  it  will  appear,  that  the 
first  Consociation  in  Windham  county  was  "  formed  gen- 
erally upon  the  plan  styled  Saybrook  Platform  ;"  and  that 
it  allowed  each  church  to  send  only  one  messenger,  and 
this  messenger,  without  exception,  to  have  an  equal  vote 
with  an  elder ;  and  the  present  Consociation  will  so  far  be 
acknowledged  the  same  as  formerly.  But  until  this  record 
is  produced,  it  will  not  be  thus  acknowledged ;  and  some, 
no  doubt,  will  believe,  that  many  who  were  in  the  vote 
declaring  it  to  have  been  formed  generally  upon  Saybrook 
Platform,  were  better  acquainted  with  the  time,  place,  and 
other  circumstances  of  its  formation,  from  personal  knowl- 
edge, than  from  ancient  records  in  their  possession. 

I  would  further  remark  upon  the  proceedings  at  Thomp- 
son, that,  in  consequence  of  the  vote  declaring  the  Conso- 
ciation to  have  been  formed  generally  upon  Saybrook  Plat- 
form, and  allowing  each  church  to  send  only  one  messen- 
ger, and  each  messenger  an  equal  vote  with  an  elder,  the 
pastor  and  delegate  of  a  particular  church,  that  was  for- 
merly consociated,  became  members  of  this  Consociation. 

It  is  particularly  observable.,  that  this  Consociation  pass- 
ed a  votCy  containing  information,  that  it  was  not  formed 
entirely  upon  Saybrook  Platform ;  and  also,  by  vote,  put 
such  a  construction  upon  an  article  of  discipline  as  was  di- 
rectly contrary  to  its  obvious  meaning,  in  order  to  take  in- 
to their  connexion  a  pastor  and  his  church,  who  were  both 
declared  by  a  Consociation  at  Eastford,  not  three  years  be- 
fore, to  "be  in  regular  connexion  with  the  consociated 
churches."  The  Rev.  Mr.  Sampson,  and  his  church,  (the 
second  church  in  Ashford,  Eastford  society,)  over  whom 
the  Consociation  at  Eastford  claimed  jurisdiction  in  1812, 
would  not,  it  seems,  jom  the  Consociation  in  1815,  until  a 
vote  was  passed  conformable  to  their  views,  and  to  make 
it  evident,  that  the  Consociation  at  Thompson  was  \$\  some 
11 


respects  upon  adifterent  plan  from  that,  upon  which  it  was 
established  before,  when  the  pastor  and  church  were  con- 
sidered as  belonging  to  it,  and  subject  to  its  jurisdiction. 
This  circumstance  is  sufficient,  of  itself,  to  determine  the 
question,  that  the  Consociation  at  Thompson  in  1815  was 
not  the  same  as  that  at  Eastford  in  1812  ;  for  none  will  be- 
lieve, that  the  Consociation  at  Thompson  were  so  com- 
plaisant to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sampson  and  his  church,  as  to  al- 
ter or  modify  their  constitution  of  church  government  to 
receive  them  into  their  connexion,  when,  in  Jact,  they 
were  consociated  already,  and  both  the  church  and  its  pas- 
tor had  long  been  an  essential  part  of  their  community. 

6.  The  present  Consociation  is  known  to  be  established 
upon  a  principle,  in  one  respect,  so  different  from  the  for- 
mer Consociation  of  Windham  County,  that  it  could  have 
no  jurisdiction  over  a  pastor  of  the  church  in  Brooklyn, 
even  if  the  pastor  were  consociated  agreeably  to  the  an- 
cient constitution  of  the  churches. 

The  Platform  says,  "  that,  according  to  the  common 
practice  of  our  churches,  nothing  shall  be  deemed  an  act 
or  judgment  of  any  Council,  which  hath  not  the  major  part 
of  the  elders  present  concurring,  and  such  a  number  of  the 
messengers  present  as  makes  a  majority  of  the  Council.'* 
Thus  the  Platform  makes  the  concurrence  of  a  major  part 
of  the  elders  of  the  consociated  churches,  or  of  the  elders 
that  are  present,  at  the  meeting  of  a  Council,  indispensably 
requisite  to  the  validity  of  any  decision.  An  act  or  judg- 
ment of  a  Council  J  which  has  not  the  concurrence  of  at 
least  a  majority  of  the  elders  present,  is  nothing.  The 
pastor  of  a  consociated  church,  upon  trial  for  any  offence, 
is  hereby  assured,  that  the  representation  of  the  churches 
can  in  no  instance  affect  his  ministerial  and  pastoral  rela- 
tions without  the  consent  of  a  tnajojity  of  the  consociated 
elders. 

The  Council  at  Brooklyn,  that  formed  the  Result  upon 
a  charge  of  heresy  against  the  junior  pastor,  consisted  of 
fourteen  elders  and  nineteen  messengers.  According  to 
the  Platform,  not  less  than  eight  of  these  fourteen  elders 
must  have  concurred  in  the  decision,  and  such  a  number 
of  messengers  as  was  necessary  to  make  a  majority  of  the 
Council.  Otherwise,  the  act  or  judgment  of  the  Council 
would  be  of  no  more  account,  than  that  of  as  many  citi- 


S3 

zens  or  freemen,  assuming  to  tliemselvcs  the  jurisdiction 
of  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal.  The  Platform  made  it  nec- 
essary,' that,  of  thirty-three  elders  and  messengers  present, 
(the  whole  number  of  the  Council,)  seventeen  (which  were 
a  majority  of  the  Council)  should  concur  in  the  Result ; 
and  that  eight  of  the  seventeen  should  be  elders. 

But  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn  was,  infact^  establish- 
ed upon  a  principle  essentially  differe?it.  It  appears  from 
the  proceedings,  froin  a  particular  act  of  the  Consocia- 
tion at  Thompson,  that  each  messenger  was  entitled  to  an 
equal  vote  with  an  elder.  This  principle  having  been  set- 
tled before  the  meeting  at  Brooklyn,  it  was  in  the  power 
of  the  messengers  of  that  Council,  of  themselves^  to  de- 
nounce and  depose  the  pastor  for  heresy,  (if  they  were  dis- 
posed to  do  it,)  even  if  every  elder  had  raised  his  voice  a- 
gainst  it.  And  how  is  it  possible,  that  a  Consociation, 
which,  in  a  particular  case,  does  not  necessarily  require 
the  concurrence  of  an  individual  elder  present,  in  order  to 
a  decision,  should  be  the  same  as  that,  which,  in  all  cases, 
necessarily  requires  the  concurrence  of  a  majority  ? 
When  it  may  be  ainrmed  in  any  instance,  without  absur- 
dity, that  the  Consociation  does  not  require  the  concur- 
rence of  a  single  elder  present^  and,  at  the  same  time,  does 
require  the  concurrence  of,  at  least,  a  majority  of  the  el- 
ders present^  in  reference  to  the  same  act,  then,  and  not  till 
then,  can  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn,  in  1817,  be  con- 
sidered, on  any  prmciple,  as  entitled  to  jurisdiction,  or  claim 
to  be  established  upon  the  same  constitution  as  formerly^ 
when  it  adhered  to  Saybrook  Platform,  without  restriction, 
as  a  rule  of  discipline  in  church  government. 

7.  Another  proof  that  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn  had 
not  jurisdiction  (on  the  supposition  that  the  pastor  and 
church  were  consociated  agreeably  to  the  Platform)  is  the 
fact,  that  several  churches,  represented  in  that  Council,  had 
never  adopted  the  Platform  as  an  ecclesiastical  constitution. 

One  church  that  was  represented  in  the  Consociation  at 
Brooklyn,  has  covenanted,  from  its  first  establishment,  to 
refer  any  difficulties  that  should  render  a  Council  necessa- 
ry, to  a  mutual,  decisive  Council  of  neighbouring  church- 
es, without  any  reference  to  Cotisociationy  or  Saybrook 
Platform.^ 

*Thc  church  here  alluded  to,  b«Iorgi  to  the  west  paiiih  in  Sillingly,  jometimes 
cillea  Wutfield. 


84 

Other  churclies  were  represented  in  the  Council  at 
Brooklyn,  which  had  formally  rejected  this  Platform,  and 
were  strictly  congregational  ;*"  or  which  were  established 
upon  a  different  constitution,  called  Cambridge  Platform. \ 
These  churches,  by  their  delegates,  acted  as  judges  upon 
a  charge  of  heresy  against  the  junior  pastor  of  a  church, 
which  never  had  any  connexion  v/ith  a  Consociation  that 
was  not  established  solely  upon  Saybrook  Platform, 

What  would  be  thought,  if  the  chief  justice  of  the  state 
of  Connecticut  should  send  out  a  communication,  request- 
ing the  supreme  judges  of  Massachusetts  to  sit  and  act  in 
a  judicial  capacity,  and  give  judgment  in  a  particular  case, 
as  members  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Connecticut ;  and 
these  judges  should  comply  with  the  message,  and  become 
a  part  of  that  court  as  assistants  and  associates  in  judg- 
ment? Would  the  decision  of  such  a  court  be  legal? 
Would  it  not  be  illegal,  and  the  court  be  liable  to  impeach- 
ment and  degradation  ?  What,  then,  shall  we  say,  when 
the  moderator  of  a  Consociation,  the  presiding  officer  of  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal,  calls  upon  churches,  that  do  not  be- 

*The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  records  of  a  church  in  Canterbury,  that  was 
fepresented  in  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn  : 

'*  Although  it  be  not  expressed  in  the  aforesaid  covenant,  that  we  actually  dissented 
from  Saybrook.  regulation  of  church  discipline,  yet  we  ever  understood  ourselves  to 
have  done  it.  We  do  therefore  here  solemnly  declare  with  our  whole  hearts,  that  we 
do  dissent  from  the  discipline  set  up  and  expressed  in  said  regulation  ;  it  appearing  to 
us  to  be  contrary  to  the  authority  of  Christ  in  his  church,  set  up  in  his  word,  which 
we  look  upon  complete  :  and  none  can  pretend  to  amend  or  add  to  it,  without  cast- 
ing open  contempt  on  Christ  and  his  Holy  Spiritj  The  said  regulation  takes  the  pow- 
er from  the  brethren  of  the  church,  and  also  puts  an  absolute  and  decisive  power  ia 
the  Consociation,  contrary  to  Christ ;  and  also  has  created  an  association,  not  created 
'or  warranted  by  Christ  in  his  word.  These  things,  this  church  looks  upon  to  be  an- 
tichrijtian,  unsciiptural,and  leads  to  a  papal  usurpation  over  the  consciences  of  Christ's 
childien." 

«'  The  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  an  extract  from  the  second  covenant  of  the  strict 
corfgregational  church  in  Canterbury.     Examined  by  me, 

"CORNELIUS  ADAMS,  Clerk  of  saiiQkurch." 

+  The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  records  of  another  church,  in  Canterbury, 
that  was  represented  in  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal  at  Brooklyn  : 

♦'We  promise  to  submit  ourselves  to  the  watch  and  discipline  of  Christ's  church, 
agreeable  to  the  scriptures,  as  a  congregational  church,  according  to  Cambridge  Plat- 
form." 

"  The  above  is  a  true  copy  of  an  article  of  agreement,  entered  into  and  signed  by 
the  brethren  ef  the  church  in  Westminster  society,  Canterbury,  November  loth,  1770. 
From  the  records  of  said  church.  Attest,  ERASTUS  LEARNED. 

*' Canterbury,  June  16th,  1818." 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Learned,  the  present  pastor  of  the  church  in  Westminster  society,  on 
the  16th  of  June,  1818,  iniormed  me,  that  he  knew  of  nothing  upon  the  church  rec- 
ords, from  which  it  would  appear,  that  the  church  hjid  ever  adopted  a  dtffeieal  con<- 
-ititutioo  ot  church  disciplineu 


at 

long  to  the  Consociation,  to  sit  and  judge  as  members  of 
this  body ;  and  these  churches,  that  have  never  adopted  the 
constitution,  or  have  formally  rejected  it,  obey  the  call,  and 
become  members  of  a  court,  in  which  they  have  no  consti- 
tutional authority  to  advise  or  to  act  ?  Can  the  decision  of 
such  a  court  be  legal  ?  Is  it  not  illegal?  And  what  could  save 
the  whole  court  from  impeachment  and  degradation,  but 
the  favourable  circumstance,  that,  as  an  ecclesiastical  body, 
their  authority  is  supreme^  their  judgment  is  final;  it  can 
never  be  re-examined  or  reversed  by  a  higher  ecclesiastical 
tribunal  ? 

In  view  of  what  has  been  said  upon  the  subject  of  juris- 
diction, the  candid  will  decide,  whether  the  Council  at 
Brooklyn  had  any  phusiblQ  or  possible  foundation  lor  the 
authority,  which  they  claimed  in  taking  cognizance  of  the 
complaint  against  the  junior  pastor;  and  whether  this 
Council  (especially  the  individuals  who  were  members  of 
the  convention  in  1800)  ought  not  to  have  kjiown,  that 
their  claim  to  jurisdiction  was  unconstitutional  and  oppres- 
sive ;  an  unwarrantable  assumption  of  power, 

I  shall  now  attend  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Consocia- 
tion, after  they  unanimously  decided  that  they  had  juris- 
diction. 

"  Feb.  6th,"  (the  second  day  of  the  session,}  "  the 
Council  met  according  to  adjournment.  Several  mem- 
bers, having  been  challenged  by  the  accused,  as  having- 
prejudged  the  case,  were  examined  and  acquitted." 

On  the  morning  of  the  second  day,  after  the  meeting- 
was  opened,  and  the  minutes  were  read,  containing  the  de- 
termination  of  the  Council  to  exercise  jurisdiction,  Mr. 
W.  the  pastor  accused,  again  protested  against  their  right 
to  proceed.  At  the  same  time,  knowing  their  determina- 
tion, he  requested  liberty  to  appear  before  them,  as  cir- 
cumstances might  require,  and  as  far  as  they  could  con- 
sistently grant  his  request ;  that  the  whole  affair  of  difficul- 
ty and  discipline  might  be  properly  understood  by  ali  that 
were  present  on  the  occasion. 

Immediately  after  the  complaint  was  read,  Mr.  W.  ob- 
served, that  several  elders,  members  of  the  Council,  had 
already  excluded  him  from  their  ministerial  fellowship,  in 
view  of  the  opinion  for  which  he  was  charged  with  heresy 


§6 

He  stated,  that  he  considered  this  renunciation  of  ministe- 
rial connexion  with  an  individual,  with  whom  they  had 
been  associated  as  brethren,  a  real  and  weighty  objection 
to  their  acting  as  judges  upon  the  complaint.  These  el- 
ders had  expressly  and  openly  refused  to  Mr.  W.  the  ordi- 
nary privilege  of  ministerial  intercourse.  In  their  individ- 
ual capacity  as  Christian  ministers,  they  had  thus  virtually 
declared  the  junior  pastor  cf  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  "  dis- 
Tjualilied  for  tlie  office  of  a  teacher  in  the  Christian  church," 
on  account  of  the  V€7'y  sentbnent,  for  w  inch  the  charge  of 
heresy  was  presented  against  him,  and  for  which  he  was 
ultimately  condemned  ;  and  yet  the  Council  decided  that 
these  elders  had  all  the  qiialiiications  requisite  to  an  impar- 
tial judgment  in  deciding  upon  the  complairit.  This  w^is 
the  method  in  Avh.ich  the  pastor  challenged  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Council,  and  this  Vias  the  decision  of  the  Con- 
sociation of  Windham  County. 

"  The  Rev.  Daniel  Dov/,"  as  appears  from  the  Result, 
"  from  m.otives  of  delicacy,  requested  to  be  excused  from 
noting  in  the  case,  and  had  liberty  to  withdraw." 

The  motives  and  delicacy  of  this  gentleman  must  not 
be  called  in  question.  The  reader  will  recollect  the  pecu- 
liar delicacy  which  he  manifested  as  a  Christian  on  a  for- 
mer occasion,  when  he  spoke  of  the  jimior  pastor  of  the 
church  in  Brooklyn  as  a  mere  suitable  companion  (in  a  re- 
ligious sense)  for  Mahometans  and  Infidels,  than  for  Chris- 
tians. It  was  decided  by  tlie  Consociation,  that  this  gen- 
tleman, who,  about  nine  months  before,  appeared  as  an  ad- 
vocate against  the  pastor,  and  publickly  reproached  him  as 
chargeable  with  infidelity  for  his  departure  from  the  faith, 
was  a  competent  judge  in  the  case  before  them.  But  the 
counsel  for  the  complainant,  suggesting  the  propriety  of 
his  retiring  from  the  seat  of  judgment,  as  he  had  previous- 
ly been  an  advocate  against  the  pastor  before  an  Ecclesias- 
tical Council,  he  requested  to  be  excused  ;  and  the  Con- 
sociation, in  accommodation  to  his  feelings,  consented  to 
excuse  him. 

"  The  counsel  for  the  complainant"  (continues  the  Re- 
sult) "  proceeded,  after  offering  evidence  that  the  regular 
.steps  of  discipline  had  been  taken,  to  support  by  testimony 
the  charge  set  forth  in  the  complaint." 


87 

The  Council  appear  to  have  been  satisfied  from  the  evi- 
dence offered,  that  the  regular  steps  of  discipline  had  been 
taken.  It  is  a  matter  of  some  consequence,  I  imagine,  to 
ascertain  what  the  regular  steps  are.  Never  did  I  sup- 
pose, that  the  steps  of  discipline  could  be  completed,  so 
as  to  obtain  a  final  judgment,  until  the  accuser  had  laid  his 
complaint  before  the  church  to  which  the  parties  belonged, 
and  the  accused  had  been  favoured  with  an  opportunity  to 
hear  the  church  upon  the  subject  of  complaint  exhibited 
agamst  him.  But  it  is  extremely  diPJcult  to  know,  in  the 
case  of  the  junior  pastor  of  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  who 
was  his  accuser,  or  who  ^vere  his  accusers,  before  the  Con- 
sociation, agreeable  to  any  regular  process  of  discipline. 

The  Result,  in  the  first  place,  informs  us,  that,  "  on  be^ 
half  of  the  members  of  the  church  at  whose  request  the 
Consociation  was  convoked^  a  paper  was  exhibited,  contain- 
ing the  charge  of  heresy  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson." 
From  this  it  appears,  that  the  charge  of  heresy  was  exhib- 
ited in  behalf  of  five  brethren  of  the  church  (considered  as 
individuals,  or  a  committee)  who  applied  for  the  calling  of 
the  Consociation.  It  is  however  certain,  that  these  breth- 
ren had  never  taken  any  steps  with  the  pastor  upon  the 
charge  of  heresy  :  they  had  taken  neither  the  first,  second, 
nor  third.  The  "  paper  exhibited"  contained  no  intimation 
of  any  steps  taken  on  their  part.  The  individuals,  or  com- 
mittee, that  applied  to  the  moderator  to  call  the  Council, 
v/hen  they  appeared  before  the  Council  at  the  time  of  the 
trial,  did  not  pretend  it,  nor  did  any  circumstances  furnish 
evidence  of  the  fact. 

The  members  of  the  church  in  whose  behalf  the  charge 
of  heresy  was  exhibited,  had  never  entered  upon  a  course 
of  discipline,  until  they  exhibited  brother  Barrett's  charge 
before  the  Consociation.  If  tliat  vuas  a  step  of  discipline,, 
to  take  the  charge  of  heresy  out  of  the  hands  of  a  brother, 
and  bring  it  before  the  consociatcd  churches  of  Windham 
county,  before  it  had  ijeen  referred  to  the  church  in  Brook- 
lyn, it  must  be  placed  to  their  credit,  though  all  other  and 
previous  steps,  on  their  part,  had  been  conscientiously 
omitted. 

The  Result,  after  declaring  that  "  the  charge  of  heresy 
was  exhibited  in  behalf  of  the  members  of  the  church  at 
whose  request  the  Consociation  was  conyoked/'  speaks  of 


88 

"  the  complainant."  "  The  complahiant  appeared,  ready 
to  substantiate  his  charge;"  "the  counsel  for  the  com- 
plainant," &c.  By  the  complainant,  I  suppose  we  are  to 
understand  Mr.  B.  who  took  the  first  and  second  steps,  ac- 
cording to  tlie  18th  of  Matthew,  and  thus  finished  his 
course  of  discipline  ;  for  it  does  not  appear  that  he  ever  ap- 
plied to  the  cliurch,  or  to  the  Consociation,  to  take  cogni- 
zance of  his  complaint,  tliough  he  had  evidently  intended 
it.  It  appears  that  he  lent  or  transferred  his  charge  of 
heresy,  and  the  complaint  he  had  prepared  to  lay  before  the 
church,  with  the  explanations  attending  them,  to  his  breth- 
ren \w  whose  behalf  the  charge  was  exhibited,  to  be  dis- 
posed of  or  used  by  them,  as  they,  in  their  wisdom,  should 
think  best. 

Mr.  B.  it  seems,  prepared  a  complaint,  addressed  to  the 
church  in  Brooklyn,  (not  to  the  Consociation  of  Windham 
County,)  but  never  laid  it  before  them.  The  pastor  was 
always  ready  to  answer  to  the  complaint  at  a  regular 
meeting  of  the  church,  and  never  objected  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  church  meeting  to  take  into  consideration  the 
charge  against  him.  But  Mr.  B.  and  his  orthodox  breth- 
ren, after  the  disappointment  occasioned  by  the  discovery 
of  their  secret  combination  at  the  irregular  meeting  of 
Dea.  Scarborough,  did  not  wish  a  meeting  of  the  church 
to  lay  the  complaint  before  them.  "Whether,  therefore, 
Mr.  B.  as  an  individual,  or  the  committee  that  applied  to 
the  Consociation,  or  all  of  them,  jointly  and  severally,  are 
to  be  considered  as  supporting  the  charge  of  heresy  before 
the  Council,  it  is  an  important  fact^  that  no  complaint  was 
ever  presented  to  the  church  in  Brooklyn  against  the  pas- 
tor ;  and  consequently  tlie  third  step  (far  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all)  in  the  process  of  discipline,  was  never  taken  by 
any  member  or  members  of  the  church.  This  fact  was 
particularly  stated,  and  was  perfectly  known  to  the  Conso- 
ciation, when  sitting  in  judgment  upon  the  complaint. 

The  knowledge  of  this  important  circumstance  appear- 
ed, for  a  short  time,  to  embarrass  tlieir  proceeding.  But, 
fortunately  for  the  Consociation,  (who  had  probably  deter- 
mined to  surmount  every  obstacle  that  stood  in  the  way  of 
the  pastor's  dismission,)  by  a  singular  pov.-er  of  invention, 
they  hit  upon  an  expedient  that  removed  the  difficulty  at 
once.     They  quickly  discovered,  that  the  Consociation  of 


89 

Wlndhatn  County  was  tlie  ehiirch  in  Brooklyn^  to  which 
the  complaint  of  Mr.  B.  was  addressed  ;  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  as  it  respected  the  pastor,  was  whothj 
in  the  Consociation,  or  Council  of  the  churches,  then  as- 
sembled ;  and  therefore  the  third  ste-p  in  the  process  of 
discijjline  was  then  taken,  if  it  never  had  been  before  ;  and 
thus  the  way  was  clear  to  dispose  of  the  pastor,  as  their 
^v'isdom  and  prudence  might  direct.  I  have  no  doubt, 
that  this  was  an  entire  departure  from  the  ancient  constitu- 
tion, and  from  the  usage  of  the  churches,  and  a  much 
greater  novelty  in  the  history  of  the  church  than  the  new 
doctrine  that  had  been  preached  in  Brooklyn.  But  it  was 
a  happy  expedient  to  meet  the  occasion  ;  and  I  am  satis- 
fied, that  nothing  but  the  inventive  genius  of  a  Consocia- 
tion could  have  discovered  it. 

The  Consociation  decided,  that  an  individual  of  the 
church  in  Brooklyn  was  competent  to  take  the  first  and 
second  steps  ;  to  accuse  and  admonish  its  pastor  for  here- 
sy, and  to  forward  a  complaint  against  him  ;  while  the 
church,  as  a  body,  was  not  competent  to  take  cognizance 
of  the  complaint ;  to  judge,  or  to  admonish.  The  Conso- 
ciation, thus  absohitely  assuming  to  themselves,  without 
the  request  or  consent  of  the  church,  its  authority  and 
government,  proceeded  to  an  examination  of  the  case. 

It  was  readily  admitted  by  the  accused,  and  the  fact  was 
established  by  evidence,  that  he  denied  the  supreme  divin- 
ity of  Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently  rejected  what  is 
commonly  called  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  doctrine 
of  three  equal  persons  in  one  God. 

He  also  considered  it  an  act  of  justice  to  himself,  re- 
•jpectful  to  the  Council,  and  adapted  to  remove  false  im- 
pressions that  had  been  made  upon  the  publick,  briefly  to 
lay  open  his  views  upon  the  subject  in  question,  to  state 
his  reasons  for  his  change  of  opinion,  and  particularly  to 
make  it  appear  to  the  Council,  and  to  all  that  were  present^ 
that  the  charge  of  heresy  could  not,  by  any  authority^  be 
supported  against  him.  Thus  he  thought  it  proper,  from 
a  regard  to  his  character  and  standing  as  a  Christian  min- 
ister, and  by  the  permission  and  indulgence  of  the  Coun- 
cil, publickly  to  offer  an  apology  for  opinions,  which  had 
often  been  represented  as  in  the  highest  degree  dangerous ; 
and  with  a  view  to  correct  tlie  misapprehensions  that  pre- 
12 


/ailed  respecting  .tlicm.  He  indulged  the  hope,  that  hls!' 
apology  would  be  satisfactory  ;  that,  at  least,  it  would  so 
far  prevail,  as  to  prevent  an  immediate  and  final  decision 
against  the  pastor  ;  a  decision,  from  which  he  apprehended 
the  most  serious  and  lasting  divisions  in  the  Christian  so- 
ciety M'ith  which  he  was  connected. 

"The  Consociation,""  after  attending  tathe  evidence  of 
fi.icts,  the  apology  of  the  accused,  and  the  reasoning  of  the 
counsel  for  the  complainant,. "  agreed  in  tJie  following  Re» 
suit : 

*'  First.  That  the  charge  against  the  Rev.  Luther  Will- 
son,  of  denying  the  proper  deity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  consequently  the  mode  of  the  divine 
subsistence  revealed  in  the  gospel,  is  supported. 

*'  Secondly.  That  the  denial  of  this  doctrine  is  a  departs 
lire  from  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

"  Thirdly..  That  this  dernal  by  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson 
disqualifies  him  for  the  office  of  a  teacher  in.  the  Christian 
church ;  inasmuch  as  it  is  a  rejection  of  an  essential  part 
of  the  counsel  of  God,,  a  denial  of  the  record  God.  has  giv- 
en of  his  Sc>n« 

*'  Accordingly,  liis  pastoral  office  in  the  churches  in  our 
fellowship  and  connexion  is  now  declared  to  be  ended." 

This  Result  is  so  remarkable  in  several  respects,  that  it 
ought  to  be  preserved  to  future  generations,  as  a  memorial 
of  the  character  of  the  Consociation  of  Windham  County, 

The  Consociation,  rather  than  to  fail  of  the  object  for 
wliich  they  were  called,  when  they  found  that  the  third  step 
of  discipline  had  not  been  taken,  assumed  to  be  the  church 
in  Brooklyn,  It  was  expected,  from  this  assumption,  that 
something  decisive  would  be  done.  The  pastor  accused 
%vas  cited  to  answer  to  "  the  crime  of  heresy ;"  audit  was  sup- 
posed, that  he  would  either  be  condemned  for  heresy,  and 
accordingly  admonished,  or  be  honourably  acquitted.  But, 
it  seems,  he  was  neither  condemned  nor  admonished  for  her- 
esy y  nor  acquitted;  but  he  had  inflicted  upon  him  all  the  pirn- 
ishment  of  the  crime  that  v/as  alleged  against  him. 

The  Consociation,  after  a  full  examination  of  the  case^^ 
did  not  presume,  in  making  out  their  Result,  to  declare 
the  pastor  guilty  of  heresy  ;  and  yet  they  rejected  him. 
They  deprived  him  (as  far  as  it  was  in  their  power  to  do 
it)  of  every  privilege  that  belongs  to  a  Christian  minister. 


9^1 

TFhe  were  not  guilty  of  heresy^  what  authority  had  thcj^ 
'to  reject  him?  It"  he  were^  why  did  they  waX  say  it,  and 
give  the  reasons  of  their  judgnient,  derived  from  the  scrip- 
tures ?  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  ;  if  they  speak 
not  according  to  this  vjord^  it  is  because  there  is  no  light 
in  them."  If  the  Consociation  meant  to  adhere  to  the 
rule  of  discipline  pointed  out  in  the  18th  of  Matthew,  as 
they  professed,  why  did  they  not  regard  it  in  their  decision  ? 
Allowing  them  to  be  the  churchy  as  they  claimed,  why  did 
they  not  give  the  pastor  an  opportunity  ^o  /2i?<2:r  the  church 
upon  the  subject  of  his  oifence,  according  to  the  Christian 
rule,*  before  they  -proc&QfX^iiXo  final  judgment  m  declaring 
him  disqualified  for  the  ministerial  and  pastoral  office? 
Why  did  they  violate  2^.  plain  and  sacred  rule^  in  rejecting 
him  from  their  fellowship,  before  they  had  endeavoured  to 
convince  him  of  his  errour,  and  to  persuade  him  to  repent- 
ance ?  Bid  the  necessity  ef  the. case  require  such  precipi- 
tancy, as  to  induce  them  to  neglect  the  means,  which  God 
had  put  into  their  hands  for  the  conviction  and  reformation 
of  alDrother?  Or  did  the  members  of  this  venerable  Coun- 
cil, in  the  fulness  and  benevolence  of  their  hearts,  consider 
his  future  usefulness  and  happiness  of  so:little  importance, 
as  to  be  unworthy  of  an  effort  for  his -salvation  ? 

I  will  here  notice  the  direction  of  St.  Paul  to  Titus: 
^^  A  man  that  is  an  heretick,  after  the  first  and  second  ad- 
monition, reject."  This  precept  is  plain,  and  is  as  impor- 
tant to  be  regarded  as  a  mysterious  article  of  faith.  If  the 
pastor  were  not  a  heretick,  (as  I  have  before  observed/) 
why  did  they  reject  him  ?  If  he  were,  why  did  they  not 
declare  it,  and  obey  the  direction  of  an  apostle,  in  using 
the  means  appointed  for  his  conviction  ?  Why  did  they 
not  administer  the  repeated  and  salutary  reproof,  before 
they  excluded  him  from  their  fellowship  ?f  Were  they,  in 

♦Says  our  Savir  jr,  ''If  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an 
-feeathcQ  tnau  and  ?  publican."  Tbis  plainly  supposes,  that  the  church,  is  to  be  hea'df 
and  that  the  individual  is  not  to  be  deprived  of  his  standing  in  the  Christian  comtnuw 
nity,  until  he  has  neglected  or  rejuied  to  hear  the  churchy  whose  duty  it  is  to  labour 
with  hiui  to  effect  a  reformation  in  his  opinions  or  conduct,  according  to  his  faults 
But  the  Consociation  were  not  heard,  until  the  pastor  was  rejected  and  dismissed* 
They  must  either  have  considered  themselves  incompetent  to  admonish,  or  have  been 
apprehensive  that  their  admonitions  would  be  effectual,  or,  what  is- more  probable, 
they  were  in  too  much  haste  to  attend  to  it,  Such  was  their  haste  and  zeal  to  accom- 
plish the  business  for  which  they  came,  {the  dismission  of  the  pastor,)  that  the  most 
.obvious  and  important  rules  of  Christian  discipline  were  comparatively  of  no  account. 

+  Is  it  not,  beyond  a  question,  the  duty  of  a  church,  or  of  those  who  are  entrusted 
-wi^  its  goveiaaoent,  ••to  admonish  aa  offending  member,  in  order  to  conviction," 


92 

this  respect,  unacquainted  with  their  Christian  obligations  ? 
Or  did  these  infallible  interpreters  of  the  mysteries  of  God 
esteem  it  a  light  thing  to  disregard  his  precepts  ?  Are 
these  the  pure,  the  disinterested,  the  merciful  ?  Or  has  it 
become  a  maxim  among  Christians,  that  a  good  end  sajic- 
tions  the  use  ofunlaivful  means  ? 

I  will  not  omit  to  notice  an  objection  to  the  tenour  of 
the  above  remarks,  whicli,  I  am  persuaded,  would  never 
have  occurred  to  me,  had  it  not  been  suggested  by  indi* 
viduals  since  the  Result  of  the  Consociation.  The  Chris- 
tian precept  is,  "A  man  that  is  an  heretick,  after  the  first 
and  second  admonition,  reject."  This  precept  the  Conso- 
ciation entirely  disregarded;  for  when  they  assumed  the 
government  of  the  church,  they  administered  no  admoni' 
tion  before  the  sentence  of  rejection  was  pronounced.  But 
it  has  been  said,  that  the  first  and  second  admonition  was 
administered  to  the  accused  by  liis  brother  Barrett,  in  tak- 
ing the  first  and  second  steps  ;  and,  consequently,  that  the 
Consociation,  possessing  the  authority  of  the  church, 
might  with  propriety  reject  him  without  ani/  admonition. 
This  objection  shows  to  what  extent  the  ingenuity  of  men 
will  carry  them  in  support  of  a  bad  cause,  or  to  save  them- 
selves from  merited  reproach.  The  Consociation  mani- 
festly decided,  by  taking  upon  themselves  the  government 
of  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  that  the  church,  as  a  body, 
were  not  competent  to  judge  upon  the  charge  of  heresy 
against  their  pastor.  And  will  it  be  said,  that  an  individual 
of  the  church  was  compet;ent  to  admonish  a  pastor  for  a 
*'  crim.e,"  of  which  the  whole  church  were  not  competent 
to  judge  ?  Or  vv^ill  it  be  said,  that  the  pastor  could  be  ad- 
monished for  a  "  crime,"  of  which  it  was  not  yet  deter- 
mined, by  any  competent  judgment,  that  he  was  guilty  ? 
Who,  by  any  legal  authority,  can  admonish  an  individual 
for  an  offence,  of  which  he  is  not  competent  to  judge ;  and 
before  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  has  been  de- 
cided by  a  proper  tribunal  ? 

before  he  can  be  depiived  of  his  Christian  or  pastoral  standing  ?  If  this  view  of  church 
discipline  be  just,  (which  I  cannot  think  will  be  disputed,)  it  was  certainly  incum- 
bent upon  the  Consociation,  allowing  them  to  be  the  church,  or  entrusted  with  its  gov- 
ernment, as  they  claitr.ed,  to  have  admonished  the  pastor,  before  they  removed  him 
from  their  fellowship  in  the  pastoral  office.  It  was  a  necessary  part  of  discipline  (and 
especially  if  they  viewed  bis  errour  to  be  fundamental)  to  labour  for  his  conviction, 
wiih  the  hope  that  he  might  renounce  his  errour,  2nd  still  be  tiseful  to  the  pecplecl 
his  charge  in  preaching  the  gos^l  of  ChiijJ, 


S3 

The  Consociation,  in  their  proceedings  thus  far,  (in  die- 
daring  the  pastor  disqualified  for  the  ministry,  and  in  re- 
jecting him  from  their  fellowship  in  the  pastoral  office,) 
7tovel  and  extraordinary  as  they  were,  had  not  yet  com- 
pleted the  climax  of  irregularity  and  oppression-     To  fin- 
ish the  work,  which  they  had  determined  to  accomplish, 
and  that  the  character  of  their  proceedings  might  be  iini- 
Jhrmly  irregular  throughout,  they  completed  the  exercise 
of  their  assumed  po^ver  over  the  pastor,  by  declaring,  that 
"  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  in  par- 
ticular, ought  to  be,  and  is  hereby  dissolved."     The  Con- 
sociation, having  assumed  the  government  of  the  church 
in  Brooklyn  without  their  request  or  consent,  concluded 
that  it  was  with  them  to  determine,  whom  the  church 
should  have,  or,  rather,  whom  they  should  not  have,  for 
their  pastor.    Saybrook  Platform  says  expressly,  "  that  each 
particular  church  hath  light  to  choose  their  own  officers." 
JBut  the  Consociation  say,  no;    the  church  in  Brooklyn 
have  not  a  right  to  choose  their  own  officers.     Although 
this  particular  church  had  chosen  the  Rev.  Luther  IVillson 
as  their  pastor,  and  had  in  no  instance  manifested  a  wish 
for  his  dismission,  nor  had  any  agency  in  calling  the  Con- 
sociation to  advise  or  to  judge,  yet  we  (say  the  Consocia- 
tion) rue  determine  that  this  man  shall  not  be  their  pastor; 
"  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  church  in  Brooklyn  ought  to 
be,  and  is  hereby  dissolved,'''"^ 

"  In  this  decision,"  says  the  Result,  "  the  Consociation 
assume  no  right,  and  take  no  liberty,  other  than  is  common 
to  all  men  acting  in  the  same  relation  and  circumstances  ; 
the  right  of  exercising  their  own  judgment,  and  the  liberty 
of  obeying  God." 

This  sentence  is  constructed  widi  admirable  caution* 
It  is  in  all  respects  worthy  of  the  wisdom  of  the  venerable 
Council  that  composed  it.  Any  body  of  men,  at  this  age 
of  the  church,  in  the  exercise  of  the  most  arbitrary  power, 
may  use  this  language  with  considerable  safety  ;  for  pre- 
cedents are  numerous,  in  the  history  of  the  church,  of  the 
authority   of  Councils  against  the  right  of  private  judg- 

*  I  have,  as  yet,  found  nothing  in  the  Platform  that  authorizes  any  earthly  power  to 
take  froDi  a  church  their  pastor  without  their  consent.  It  ought  also  to  be  considered, 
that  the  members  of  the  church,  who  appUed  to  the  moderator  to  call  the  Consociation^ 
4id  not,  in  their  communication,  request  the  pastor's  dismission;  but  only  that. the 
cue  should  Uc  determined  a§rccable  to  Saybrook  Platform, 


94 

anent,  and  in  isupport  of  the  pretensions  of  practical  infaltu 
lility  m  matters  of  faith.  iL\Q\\  the  Roman  Pontiff,  issu- 
ing his  decree,  as  "  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  m  the  name 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,"  would  not,  I  am  persuaded,  hesitate 
to  say,  in  support  of  his  supremacy  in  the  Catholick  church, 
that  he  **  assumes  no  rio^ht,  and  takes  no  Uberty,  other  than 
is  common  to  all  men ^  acting  in  the  same  relation  and  cir^ 
cumstances ;  the  right  of  exercising  his  own  judgment, 
and  the  hberty  of  obeying  God." 

I  shall  make  no  further  remarks  upon  the  Result,  as  it 
respects  the  heresy  of  the  pastor,  than  just  to  observe,  that 
the  Consociation  appear  to  have  been  sincere  ;  for  they  de- 
clared themselves  "  supported  by  the  consciousness,  that  a 
supreme  regard  to  their  divine  Lord  and  Master,  and  a  sin- 
-cere  desire  to  fulfil  their  covenant  engagements  to  the 
church,  had  guided  and  governed  them  in  their  course." 
They  also,  after  they  had  excluded  the  pastor  from  every 
privilege  as  a  Christian  minister,  "  tenderly  admonished 
liim  to  return  to  the  Christian  fiiith." 

How  Hir  the  individuals  who  composed  this  Council, 
-and  who  concurred  in  the  decision,  acted  from  the  influ- 
ence of  pious  and  Christian  motives,  in  their  impatient  zeal 
to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  orthodox  faith,  and  in  pro- 
iiouncing  sentence  thus  irregularly  against  a  pastor  for 
'what  they  considered  an  essential  errour,  it  is  not  mr/ 
province  to  judge,  or  to  express  an  opinion.  "  There  is 
one  lawgiver y  who  is  able  to  save  and  to  destroy."  The 
time  is  not  far  distant,  when  the  pastor  that  was  condemn- 
ed, and  they  that  condemned  him,  as  unworthy  of  the  min- 
istry, will  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  where 
every  righteous  decision  on  earth  will  be  approved  and  con- 
firmed, and  every  unjust  judgment  be  condemned  and  re- 
versed. At  the  day  of  final  retribution,  the  light  of  anoth- 
er world  will  exhibit  every  individual  in  his  true  charac- 
ter. "Every  work  will  be  brought  into  judgment,  with 
every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be 
evil."  "  The  time  is  at  hand."  *'  In  that  day,  God  shall 
judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ."  "  He  that  is 
inijust,  will  be  unjust  still ;  and  he  that  is  righteous,  will 
be  ri.(:hteous  still." 

I  p.nw  come  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Result,  which  has 
fespeci  to  a  commuulcatioii  made  to  the  Council  convened,, 


95 

(ftQntaining  a  request,  that  they  would  direct  to  the  choictJ 
of  a  Mutual  Council  to  hear  and  determine  the  case  of 
Mr.  Willson,  and  to  dissolve  his  pastoral  relation. 

"  To  the  venerable  Ecclesiastical  Council  noiv  convened  at 
Brooklyn  to  hear  and  determine  on  a  charge  of  heresy 
against  the  Rev.  Lather  Willson, 

"  We  the  subscribers,  parties  concerned,,  viewing  it 
more  desirable  for  the  interest  of  religion,  and  for  the 
peace  of  the  society  in  this  town,  that  the  case  now  underr 
consideration  should  be  settled  by  a  Mutual  Council,  do 
request  the  Council  now  convened,  to  direct  to  the  choice 
of  such  Council  to  hear  and  determine  the  case  of  Mro> 
Willson.  The  business  of  the  Mutual  Council  shall  be 
to  dismiss  Mr.  Willson,  and  set  him  on  such  ground,  as 
to  ministerial  character,  as  they  may  judge  proper.  The 
Council  to  be  chosen  shall  be  of  such  a  character,,  and 
ehosen  on  such  principles,  as  shall  be  approved  by  the 
Council  now  convened. 

"  For  Luther  Willson^ 

J.  NELSON. 

JOSEPH  SCARBOROUGH, 

in  behalf  of  the  aggrieved  Brethrem 

JOHN  PARISH, 
SHUBAEL  BROWN, 
NATHAN  WITTER,  Jr. 

for  the  Society.'''' 

'"^  After  consultatfon  on  this  subject,  the  question,  Will 
you  accede  to  the  above  proposal  ?  was  put,  and  passed  m 
the  affirmative. 

"  Mr.  Willson,  on  his  part,  having,  in  the  apprehension 
of  the  Consociation,  receded  from  the  conciliatory  terms 
in  the  above  agreement,  it  was  voted  that  the  minutes  be 
closed  and  published." 

From  this  it  seems,  that  the  Consociation  and  Mr.  Will- 
son  had  made  an  agreement,  the  terms  of  which,  on  the 
part  of  the  Consociation,  were  liberal  and  conciliatory; 
and  that,  notwithstanding  the  pacifick  disposition  of  this 
venerable  body,  Mr.  Willson  had  neither  honour  nor  integ^ 
ritij  sufficient  to  abide  by  the  agreement  which  he  had 


96 

Inade.  I  shall  here  just  observe,  before  I  relate  the  cir* 
eu  instances  of  the  affair,  that  the  Consociation  in  this  in- 
stance, as  in  all  their  proceedings,  fell  into  a  great  mistake. 
Mr.  VV.  never  made  any  agreement  with  the  Consociation, 
to  which  he  did  not  scrupulously  adhere. 

I  shall  now  state  the  principal  circumstances,  as  far  as  I 
know  them  and  have  been  informed,  relative  to  an  attempt 
for  a  Mutual  Council ;  and  relative  to  the  closing  part  of 
the  Result,  in  which  Mr.  VV.  is  represented  as  "  having  re- 
ceded from  the  conciliatory  terms  of  agreement." 

The  session  of  the  Consociation  at  Brooklyn  was  con- 
tinued the  most  of  three  days.  The  first  day  v/as  entirely 
occupied  upon  the  subject  of  jurisdiction.  The  Conso- 
ciation decided  in  the  evening,  that  they  had  jurisdiction 
in  the  case.  The  second  day  was  employed,  from  early  in 
the  morning  until  late  in  the  evening,  in  the  examination 
of  the  case  ;  in  hearing  the  statement  and  apology  of  the 
accused,  and  the  argument  of  the  counsel  in  support  of  the 
complaint.  On  the  morniiig  of  the  second  day,  before  the 
trial  commenced,  the  counsel  for  the  complainant,  the 
Hon.  Mr.  Perkins,  of  Ashford,  and  the  counsel  for  the  ac- 
cused, the  Rev.  Mr.  Fiske,  of  New-Braintree,  (Mass.) 
used  their  influence  and  exertions  in  recommending  a 
Mutual  Council  to  hear  and  determine  the  case  under  con- 
sideration, and  to  dismiss  Mr.  Wiilson  from  his  pastoral 
office.  These  gentlemen,  from  a  regard  to  the  peace  of 
the  society  in  Brooklyn,  urged  before  the  Consociation, 
the  reasonableness  and  expeaienc}'^  of  the  measure.  The 
Consociation  decided,  and  repeated  their  decision  with 
emphasis,  that  they  were  imperioushf  bound  to  attend  to 
the  complaint.  These  gentlemen  still  continued  to  cm- 
ploy  their  influence  with  the  parties  to  effect  an  agreement 
for  a  Council,  until  all  hope  of  its  accomplishment  was 
given  up.     Late  in  the  evening,  the  trial  was  finished. 

The  next  morning,  one  of  the  society's  committee  call- 
ed at  the  house  of  Mr.  Wiilson,  and  expressed  a  desire, 
from  a  regard  to  the  situation  of  the  society,  that  an  agree- 
ment upon  a  Mutual  Council  might  be  effected.  Mr.  W. 
observed,  that  he  had  always  been  ready  to  agree  upon  a 
Mutual  Council ;  that  a  serious,  but  unsuccessful  attempt 
had  been  made  for  that  purpose  by  the  counsel  of  both 
parties  the  day  before  j  that  enough  had  l^een  done  ;  that 


97 

for  his  part,  he  chose  that  the  Consociation  should  finish 
the  business  in  their  own  way  ;  that  they  should  acquit,  or 
condemn,  as  they  pleased.  The  gentleman  of  the  com- 
mittee replied,  that  he  had  been  conversing  with  the  ag- 
grieved brethren,  and  that  they  appeared  sincerely  and  ear- 
nestly disposed  to  agree  upon  a  Mutual  Council.  Mr.  W. 
answered,  that  if  they  were  desirous  of  such  an  agreement, 
they  certainly  could  have  no  objection  to  coming  forward 
with  a  proposition ;  that  he  was  ready  to  receive,  and  to 
take  into  consideration,  any  proposals  that  they  were  dis- 
posed to  make  ;  that  he  was  entirely  averse  to  offering  any 
terms  on  his  part,  until  he  had  received  proposals  from 
them.  As  they  were  conversing  upon  the  subject,  anoth- 
er of  the  society's  committee  came  in,  and  soon  after,  one 
of  the  aggrieved  brethren,  and  also  one  of  their  counsel ; 
all  expressing  their  desire  that  au  agreement  for  a  Mutual 
Council  might  take  place,  with  the  hope,  that  if  the  parties 
should  agree,  the  Consociation  would  approve  of  the  meas- 
ure. 

In  these  circumstances,  Mr.  Willson  indulged  the  hope, 
that  an  agreement  upon  such  a  Council  to  determine  the 
case,  and  to  dissolve  his  pastoral  relation,  might  possibly 
be  the  means  cf  restoring  peace  to  the  church,  and  of  pre- 
venting unhappy  divisions  in  the  society.  Accordingly  he 
authorized  his  counsel,  Mr.  Fiske,  and  his  friend,  Mr.  Nel- 
son, to  join  the  parties  concerned,  and  to  agree  upon  such 
measures  as  they  thought  prudent  and  safe  for  him^  and  as 
would  also  be  adapted  to  promote  the  interest  of  religion, 
and  particularly  the  peace  and  happiness  of  the  society  in 
Brooklyn. 

Mr.  Fiske  and  Mr.  Nelson  immediately  left  the  house 
of  Mr.  ^V.  and  joined  the  committee  and  the  aggrieved 
brethren  in  concerting  measures  for  the  settlement  of  the 
"whole  aftair  by  a  Mutual  Council.  With  the  general  be- 
lief that  the  Consociation,  at  this  stage  of  the  business, 
would  not  be  tenacious  of  exercising  the  power  which  they 
claimed  as  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  the  parties  forwarded 
a  respectful  proposal,  containing  a  request,  that  the  Conso- 
ciation would  direct  to  the  choice  of  a  Mutual  Council  to 
dismiss  Mr.  Willson  ;  "  the  Council  to  be  of  such  a  char- 
acter, and  chosen  on  such  principles,  as  the  Consociatioa 
should  approve."  This  proposal,  when  handed  to  the 
13 


9.^ 

Consociation  by  Mr.  Nelson,  was  accompanied  particular''- 
lij  vvitli  a  list  of  names,  exhibiting  a  specimen,  or  cxpiana- 
tidn,  as  to  the  character  of  tlie  Council,  to  which  Mr. 
Willson  would  a2:rce  ;  that  the  Consociation  miijht  decide 
at  once,  whether  they  would  accept  the  projjosal  or  not. 
The  Consociation  did  not,  however,  decide  in  the  presence 
of  the  parties,  that  they  would  accept,  or  reject  it.  And 
altb.ough  they  ultimately  concluded  to  accept  it,  (as  is  de- 
clared in  the  Result,}  yet  their  decision  in  this  respect  was 
never  made  knoun  to  the  parties,  until  the  Result  was 
published.  It  was  generally  believed,  that  the  character  of 
the  Council  (as  appeared  from  the  list. of  names)  would  be 
acceptable,  as  they  were  all  Trinitarians,  and  most  or  all  of 
them  v/hat  is  commonly  called  Calvinistick.  The  names 
that  were  presented  by  Mr.  Nelson  as  a  specimen,  Vv'cre  aSi 
Ibllow,  all  belonging  to  Massachusetts  : 

Rev.  Dr.  CRANE,  of  Northhridge, 
Mx.  STONE,  'Brookfdd, 
]Mr.  SNELL,  Xorth-Brookfield, 
Dr.  PUFFi:R,  Berlin, 
Dr.   PARSONS,  Amherst, 
Mr.  ROCKWOOli,  IVestborough, 
Mr.  BAl^ES,  Didham, 
Mr.  FISKE,    Wrentham, 
Dr.  HOLMES,   Cambridge,. 
Mr.  TOxMLINSON,  Qakhmiu 

To  a  Council  of  this  general  Gliaracter,  Mr.  Wii'lson  was 
ready  to  agree  ;  and  Mr.  Nelson,  who  acted  for  him  in 
signing  the  proposal,  has  repeatedly  aiid  expressly  declared, 
that  he  never  cave  to  the  Consociation  anv  intimation,  that 
Mr.  Willson  would  agree  to  a  Council  which  should  be  of 
a  character  more  favourable  to  their  views. 

The  Consociation  therefore,  when  they  received  this 
projjosal,  received  it  with  the  explanation  that  accompa- 
nied it;-  and  consequentiv,  if  they  acceded  to  it,  had  no 
claiin  upon  Mr.  \Vills(jn  for  a  Council  more  orthodox, 
than  was  ni'prescnted  by  the  list  of  names  offered  as  a  sjiec- 
imcn.  r  shall  here  insert  the  declaration  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Fiske,  Mr.  W.'s  counsel,  relative  to  the  same  point.  This 
declaration  is  from  Mr.  Fiske's  own  hand,  communicated 
to  Mr.  W.  at  his  request,  and  with  an  expectation  that  it 


V9 

nvoiild  be  made  publick.  "  \yith  respect  to  the  phrase  in 
^the  proposal  presented  to  the  Consociation,  that  '  the 
■Council  to  be  chosen  shall  be  of  such  a  character,  and 
chosen  on  such  principles,  as  shall  be  approved  by  the 
Council  now  convened,'  it  was  understood  to  imply,  and 
was  so  explained  before  each  party,  that  the  said  Council 
should  consist  of  men  holding  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity, and  that  it  should  be  chosen  in  a  fair  and  liberal  man- 
ner, the  Consociation  being  judges  ofthis.*' 

Some  members  of  the '•Consociation  have  said,  that  Mr. 
Fiske,  in  settling  the  manner  of  choosing  the  Council,  en- 
■couraged  them  to  believe,  that  a  ^*  bunch  of  names,"  "  a 
plenty  of  Trinitarian  names,  would  be  presented,"*  out  cJi 
which  the  Consociation  might  select  the  number  of  which 
the  Council  was  to  consist.  .1  think  it -proper  here  to  re- 
mark, that  while  these  members  declare  that  Mr.  Fiske 
gave  the  fullest  encouragement,  that  a  "  bunch  of  names 
should  be  presented,  out  of  which  the  Council  might  be 
selected,"  still  they  expressly  admit,  (I  have  it  in  writing 
from  their  own  hand,)  that  he  told  them  "he  had  not  the 
assent  of  Mr.  Willson  to  act  upon."  Allowing,  therefore, 
the  statement  of  these  members  to  be  correct,  how  could 
Mr,  W.  be  bound  to  the  Consociation  to  execute  the  pro- 
posal in  a  particular  manner,  when  the  Consociation  were 
expressly  informed  by  his  counsel,  that  he  had  not  assent- 
cd to  this  method  of  carrying  the  proposal  into  effect?  I 
think  it  obvious,  that  in  such  a  case,  the  agreement,  as  to 
the  method  of  choosing  the  Council,  could  not  be  com- 
pleted, until  Mr.  W.  had  assented ;  and  to  this  method, 
he  certainly  never  did  assent,  either  in  person,  or  by  proxy. 

Whatever  was  the  conversation  upon  the  method  of 
choosing  the  Council,  I  have  frequently  been  informed 
that  the  conclusion  was,  that  the  parties  should  retire,  and 
that  the  Consociation  would  deliberate  upon  the  case,  as  to 
accepting  the  proposal.  The  parties  accordingly  retired 
lo  a  particular  apartment  of  the  house  in  which  tlie  Conso- 
ciation were  sitting.  After  a  short  time,  two  gentlemen 
of  the  Consociation,  appearing  as  a  committee,  stated  to 
the  parties,  that  they  were  not  authorized  to  say  that  the 

*  The  phrase,  "  bunch  of  name*,"  and  •' plenty  of  Trinitarian  names/*  isthelan- 
•fruage  of  gentlemen  that  were  members  of  the  Consociation,  used  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  W, 
a'hc  Rev,  Mr.  Fiske,  Mr.  W.'t  counsrl,  will  not,  I  presume,  acknowledge  it  to  be  his. 


100 

propasal  would  be  accepted  ;  but  they  requested  the  par- 
ties to  send  in  names.  Mr.  VVilison,  who  had  not  as  yet 
been  present  at  any  part  of  the  conversation,  or  been  ac- 
quainted with  the  process  of  the  business  thus  far,  was 
now  called  from  his  own  house,  to  join  the  aggrieved 
brethren,  and  the  committee  of  the  society,  in  agreeing 
upon  the  names  of  a  Council  to  lay  before  the  Consocia- 
tion. Mr.  Willson,  Dea.  Scarborough,  the  agent  of  the 
aggrieved  brethren,  and  the  committee  of  the  society,  soon 
met,  and  agreed  upon  a  Mutual  Council.  The  number  of 
pastors  of  which  the  Council  was  to  consist  was  nine.  They 
were  the  following;  six  in  Massachusetts,  and  three  in 
Connecticut  : 

Rev.  Dr.  CRANE,  of  Northhridge, 

Mr.  SNELL,  North- Br ookjield, 

Mr.  STONE,  Brookfield, 

Mr.  ELY,  Monson, 

Dr.  HOLMES,  Cambridge, 

Mr.  FISKE,  Wrentham, 

Mr.  NOTT,  Franklin, 

Mr.  Mc  EWEN,  New -London, 

Mr.  NELSON,  Lisbon. 

The  names  were  handed  to  the  Consociation  by  Mr. 
Willson,  all  parties  being  present,  and  expressly  declaring 
their  concurrence.  The  parties  then  retired  ;  Mr.  Willsoii 
to  his  own  house,  with  no  other  expectation,  than  that  the 
Consociation  would  approve  and  confirm  the  choice,  or 
reject  the  proposition,  and  finish  the  business,  as  if  no  pro- 
posal had  been  made.  After  a  few  minutes,  one  of  the 
society's  committee  handed  to  Mr.  Willson,  as  he  was  at 
dinner,  a  small  piece  of  paper,  containing  the  following 
words :  *'  Three  more  names."  Neither  the  paper,  nor 
the  gentleman  who  handed  it,  could  give  any  explanation 
of  its  meaning.  It  was  not  inquired,  who  sent  it ;  nor 
was  it  mentioned.  Mr.  W.  conjectured,  that  it  came 
from  Dea.  Scarborough,  one  of  the  parties  in  the  choice  of 
the  Council.  But  as  the  paper  was  not  directed  to  him, 
and  was  not  signed  by  any  one,  and  he  did  not  know  (nor 
could  Mr.  Fiske  and  Mr.  Nelson,  who  were  present,  in- 
form him)  that  he  was  under  any  obligation  to  furnish 
more  names,  he  sent  the  paper  back  to  the  person,  or  place, 
from  whence  it  came,  with  this  answer :  that  he  was  satis- 


101 

fied  with  the  names  upon  which  tlie  parties  had  agreed, 
a^nd  that  he  had  no  more  to  otFer. 

It  was  not  long  before  it  was  intimated  to  Mr.  W.  that 
the  Consociation  considered  liis  sending  back  the  paper  as 
lie  did,  an  insult.  Unable  to  conjecture  what  could  be  the 
import  of  these  indications,  he  immediately  requested  Mr. 
Nelson,  who  signed  the  proposal  in  his  behalf,  and  was 
acquainted  with  the  general  process  of  the  business,  to  go 
to  the  Consociation,  and,  if  what  had  been  intimated  were 
true,  to  ascertain  the  oifence,  in  order  that  tiie  circum- 
stances might  be  explained,  and  properly  understood. 
Mr.  Nelson  accordingly  went ;  and  as  soon  as  he  had 
opened  the  door  where  this  venerable  body  were  in  session, 
and  before  he  had  time  to  introduce  the  subject  of  his  mes- 
sage, he  was  significantly  informed,  that  they  could  not  be 
interrupted.*  Meeting  with  this  repulse,  and  averse  to 
any  thing  that  should  appear  like  intrusion,  he  immediate- 
ly retired,  without  accomplishing  the  business  for  which 
he  went. 

After  Mr.  Nelson's  return,  Mr.  Willson,  and  Mr.  Par- 
ish, one  of  the  society's  committee,  made  an  attempt  to 
gain  admittance  to  the  presence  of  the  Consociation,  with 
the  hope  of  rectifying  the  mistake,  or  misunderstanding, 
that  had  unfortunately  occurred.  With  difficulty  they  en- 
tered the  room.  The  members  of  the  Consociation,  hav- 
ing finished  their  business,  were  all  standing,  and  appeared 
to  be  preparing  to  move  to  the  meeting-house.  As  soon 
as  Mr.  W.  and  Mr.  P.  had  entered  the  door,  there  seemed 
to  be  a  particular  commotion^  and,  as  far  as  the  counte- 
nances of  men  are  an  index  of  tlteir  feelings,  an  evident 
^Lversion  with  many,  and  particularly  the  moderator,  to 
hear  or  to  notice  any  thing  that  the}^  were  about  to  say. 
Mr.  W.  observed,  that  an  intimation  had  been  given  that 
the  Consociation  considered  his  sending  back  the  paper  as 
he  did,  highly  disrespectful ;  that  he  was  very  sorry  such 
an  impression  should  be  received  ;  that  no  disrespect  was 
intended  ;  that  he  did  not  know  that  the  paper  came  frorr\ 
them.  Mr.  Parish  also  stated,  that  he  understood  there 
was  a  mistake  about  names,  and  that  they  wished  to  have 

*  Mr.  Nelson  has  expressly  and  repeatedly  declared,  and  is  ready  to  certify  it  with 
the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  that  the  appearance  of  this  body,  at  the  time  he  entered  the 
room,  was  extrcmtly  repulsivt ;  that  they  manifested  a  degree  of  excitement  acd  irrita^- 
tion  not  to  have  been  expected  in  a  deliberative  assembly. 


102 

it  corrected  ;  but  such  ^vas  the  commotion,  *that  it  was  dif- 
ficult for  Mr.  W.  and  Mr.  P.  to  be  heard.  When  they 
<!ntered  the  room,  the  face  of  the  moderator  was  directly 
towards  them  ;  but  he  immediately  turned,  and  apparently 
directed  his  attention  to  other  objects,  as  if  he  were  deter- 
mined 7iot  to  hear.  In  their  solicitude  to  address  the  mod- 
erator, the  Rev.  Mr.  Underwood,  a  member  of  the  Coun- 
cil, who  appeared  equally  solicitous  that  they  might  have 
opportunity  to  be  heard,  called  to  the  moderator,  two  or 
three  times,  to  arrest  his  attention.  At  length,  the  Rt.v. 
moderator  turned  to  Mr.  Willson  and  Mr.  Parish,  and,  in 
a  manner  highly  expressive  of  his  dignity,  as  presiding  of- 
ficer of  this  respectable  body,  put  an  end  to  all  further 
communications,  by  declaring,  that  "  the  minutes  of  the 
Consociation  were  closed,  and  there  was  no  farther  heariri^ 
upon  the  subject."  At  this  peremptory  reply,  Mr.  W. 
and  Mr.  P.  were  disposed  to  retire  as  soon  as  possible, 
and  immediately  withdrew.  Thus  ended  the  attempt  to 
come  to  an  explanation  of  the  circumstance  that  so  high- 
ly offended  this  honourable  Council. 

In  this  decision  of  the  moderator,  his  manner  was  so 
titriking  and  impressive,  as  not  easily  to  be  forgotten.  His 
posture  was  erect ;  his  countenance  was  highly  animated ; 
and  there  was  much  of  the  sublime  in  the  tone  and  modu- 
lation of  his  voice. 

I  shall  now  offer  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  true  reason 
why  the  Consociation  were  i^o  decided  and  absolute  in  re- 
fusing an  explanation. 

An  individual,  at  that  time  a  "member  of  the  Consocia- 
tion, has  since  stated,  that  soon  after  the  paper  was  return- 
ed without  more  names,  (the  circumstance  which  gave  so 
great  offence,)  the  aggrieved  brethren,  one  of  the  parties 
that  had  agreed  upon  a  Mutual  Council,  went  into  the 
room  where  the  Consociation  were  together,  and  desired 
them  not  to  consent  to  the  Council  proposed.  Here  the 
secret  is  brought  to  light.  The  aggrieved  brethren,  by 
their  agent,  had  signed  the  proposal  for  a  Mutual  Council, 
and  had  expressly  agreed  before  the  Consociation  to  the 
names  that  were  presented  by  Mr.  Willson.  But  as  soon 
as  the  other  parties  were  absent,  and  they  found  that  Mr, 
\V.  had  given  offence  by  not  sending  more  names,  they 
pivately  requested  the  Consociation  not  to  consent  to  the 


103 

Council,  upon  which  they  had  explicitly  and  puhRckly  (r- 
greed:  Ajid  this  request  (without  the  knowledge  or  con-^ 
sent  of  the  other  parties)  has  been  declared  by  a  member 
of  the  Consociation,  to  be  the  reason  why  they  did  not 
wait  lor  an  explanation  of  the  misunderstanding  about 
names. 

The  Consociation  tliought  it  proper,  in  their  Result,, 
publickly  to  attribute  the  failure  of  a  Mutual  Council  to 
Mr.  Willson,  by  charging  him  with  receding  from  a  con- 
ciiiatoiy  agreement ;  while  they  conceal  the  fact,  that  the 
true  reason  of  this  failure  was  owing  to  the  private  request 
of  the  aggrieved  brethren.  Thus  the  Consociation  had  so 
much  respect  to  the  private  views  and  w'ishes  of  these 
brethren,  as  to  countenance  a  direct  violation  of  their  ex- 
plicit  and  publick  agreement^  and  as  charitably  to  cover 
their  dishonesty  and  deceit.* 

From  these  facts,  in  what  light  does  the  character  of  the 
Consociation  appear,  professing  themselves  to  have  acted 
from  an  impressive  sense  of  responsibility  to  their  Lord, 
and  to  have  been  governed  by  the  influence  and  spirit  of 
his  religion  ? 

This  venerable  Coz/na7,  with  all  the  pretensions  of  Chris^ 
tian  candour  and  impartiality,  and  with  the  imposing  so- 
lemnity of  a  serious  and  deliberate  Result,  appear,  in  this 
instance,  to  have  acted  with  a  particular  design  to  excite 
suspicion  against  the  morality  of  the  man,  whom  they  had 
rejected  from  their  fellovv'sliip.  It  was  evidently  their  ob- 
ject, in  declaring  their  opinion  that  Mr.  Willson  had  re- 
ceded from  the  terms  of  a  conciliatory  agreement,  to  fix 
an  impression  upon  the  society  in  Brooklyn  and  upon  the 
publick,  that  the  aggrieved  brethren,  the  committee  of  the 
society,  and  the  Consociation,  were  all  (for  the  sake  of 
peace)  in  favour  of  a  Mutual  Council ;  but  that  Mr.  Will- 
son  was  so  far  deficient  in  moral  rectitude  and  conciliatory 
principles,  as  to  recede  from  the  agreement  which  he  had 
made.     Such  management^  in  any  other  assembly  than  a 

*  It  appears  that  the  ag)?rieved  breihren,  as  a  party  in  the  trial,  and  in  the  affair  of  a 
Mutual  Council,  we:e  h'ghly  favoured  They  were  admitted  to  the  secret  counsels  of 
ihe  Consociatiou  ;  and  ihecr  private  request,  though  in  direct  violation  of  their  publick 
agieement,  v/a»  a  suffi.:ient  authority  Vor  ihe  Consociation  to  act  upon.  What  a  sym- 
pithy  and  friendship  be  ween  this  orthodox  and  venerable  tribunal,  and  those  good, 
brethren,  who  invited  them  to  come  to  Brooklyn  and  pronounce  sentence  upon  theiss 
heretical  pastor ! 


104 

Consociation,  could  not  be  entitled  to  n  more  honourable 
name  than  political  collusion. 

And  are  these  the  men  to  whom  are  committed  the  keys 
of  the  kiui^dom  ;  to  receive  or  to  exclnde  whom  they  iir  their 
big'h  prerogatives  shall  ordain  ?  Is  it  the  peculiar  privilege 
of  Christians  xvho  are  sound  in  the  faitJi^  to  be  deficient  in 
good  works,  and  io  practise  dissimulation,  because  of  their 
pretemiions  and  pre-eminence  in  the  knowledge  of  myste- 
ries ?  What  says  our  Saviour  ?  "  Not  every  one  that  saith 
imto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en, but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven." 

I  shall  now  point  out  the  unreasonableness  and  Jolly  of 
the  Consociation,  in  being  offended  at  Mr.  W.'s  sending 
back  the  [>aper  witholit  tnore  natties. 

1.  The  nine  gentlemen,  agreed  upon  by  all  parties  to 
compose  the  Council,  were  so  completelij  answerable  to  the 
eharncter  of  the  list  of  names  offered  by  Mr.  Nelson  as  a 
specimen,  that  when  the  Consociation  wrote  upon  the  pa- 
per, *'  three  more  names,"  they  did  not  intimate  an  objec- 
tion  to  the  principles  or  character  of  an  individual  of  the 
Colmcil  upon  which  the  parties  had  agreed.  A  call,  there- 
fore, for  more  names  was  disingenuous  and  unreasonable, 
unless  they  could  offer  some  objection  to  the  character  of 
the  persons  whose  names  had  been  presented ;  or  had  stat- 
ed that  the  character  of  several  who  were  in  the  list  was  iin^ 
known  to  them. 

2.  The  paper  handetl  to  Mr.  W.  had  no  form,  by  v/hicli 
it  could  be  considered  as  exhibiting  a  claim  or  demand  upon 
him  for  any  thing.  It  was  not  directed  to  him  ;  nor  had  il; 
any  signature,  by  which  he  could  know  from  whence  is: 
came.  If  the  Consociation  had  any  communication  to 
make  in  writing,  requesting  more  names,  it  ought  to  have 
been  made  to  the  parties  jointly  and  mutually  concerned, 
and  to  have  been  signed  officially  by  the  scribe  or  modera- 
tor. But  it  \vi\s  not  made  to  the  parties  that  subscribed  the 
proposal,  (one  of  which,  without  the  others,  was  not  con;- 
petent  to  an  agreement,)  nor  was  it  made  to  either  party 
in  any  form  that  was  intelligible.  And,  surely,  a  papc^- 
which  was  not  directed  to  iht  parties  jointly  ^  or  to  either  par 
ty^  nor  signed  by  the  moderator,  scribe,  or  a  committee  of 
the  Coni?ociation,  could  have  no  more  authority ^  or  furnish 


105 

any  more  claim  upon  Mr.  Willson,  than  a  piece  of  paper 
entirely  blank. 

If  the  Consociation,  in  makins^  a  communication  to  Mr. 
Willson,  had  not  time,  or  did  not  think  it  of  importance 
enough,  to  give  it  their  signature,  that  he  might  know  from 
whom  it  came,  I  should  suppose  their  sense  of  propriety- 
might  have  readily  suggested  an  excuse  for  not  sending 
more  names,  and  have  saved  their  extreme  susceptibility 
and  keen  resentments. 

3.  The  Consociation  had  no  claim  upon  Mr.  Willson  for 
more  names  upon  ariy  principle  whatever.  This  was  ex- 
pressly declared,  at  the  time  the  paper  was  presented,  by  the 
Rev.  Messrs.  Fiske  and  Nelson,  who  were  the  only  agents 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  \V.  in  making  or  settling  proposals  for 
a  Mutual  Council.* 

•  The  following  is  the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  FUke,  who  was  acquainted  Mrith 
all  the  important  facts,  and  the  whok  process  of  the  business,  relative  to  ihe  aS^airof  a 
Muiual  Council.  This  testimony  was  communicated  (o  Mr.  W.  at  his  request,  in  Sep- 
tember following  the  result  of  the  Consociation,  and  a  short  lime  before  the  convening 
of  the  Council  that  dismissed  htm  from  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  society  in  Brookjyn, 

«•  With  respect  to  that  part  of  the  Result  of  Consociation,  wherein  they  charge  Mr. 
Willson  with  being  the  cause  of  preventing  a  transfer  of  thequestion  pending  before  that 
body  to  a  Mutual  Council,  by  hi*  receding  from  the  terms ot  agreement,  which  hede$ir<ss 
to  have  set  in  its  proper  light  before  the  Council  about  to  be  convened — I  can  speak  with 
the  utmost  confidence;  and  feel  no  hesitation  in  asserting,  that  Mr.  Willion  was  not  the 
voluntary  cause  of  pieventing  it,  however  it  might  be  conceived  of  by  the  Consociation, 

•'  After  Mr.  Willson  had  consented  to  refer  the  matterin  question  to  a  Mutual  Coun- 
•cil,  consisting  of  Trinitarians,  the  business  was  managrd  fax  him,  both  with  the  ag- 
grieved and  with  the  Consociation,  wholly  by  the  Rew.  Mr.  Nelson  and  myself,  until 
Mr.  Willson  was  called  from  his  own  house  to  make  choice  of  the  Council. 

'•  Wiih  respect  to  the  phrase  in  the  proposal  presented  to  the  Consociation,  •  the 
Council  .o  be  chosen,  shall  be  of  such  a  character,  and  chosen  on  such  principles,  as 
ahall  be  approved  by  the  Consociation  now  convened,'  it  was  understood  to  imply, 
and  was  so  explained  before  each  party,  that  the  said  Council  should  consist  of  mea 
holding  to  the  doctrins  of  ihe  Trinity;  and  that  it  should  be  chosen  in  a  fair  and  libe- 
lal  manner,  the  Consociation  being  judges  of  this.  It  was  expressly  agreed  within  the 
Consociation,  that  if  afiy  objections  were  to  be  made  to  any  person  nominated  by  Mr. 
Willson,  they  should  be  made  openly,  all  parties  bfing  present.  Upon  Mr.  Wilison'^ 
arrival  at  Capt.  Tyler's,  he  immediately,  and  without  hesitation,  proceeded  to  make 
out  a  list  of  names  for  the  Council,  the  aggrieved  having  an  equal  voice  io  this  choice, 
which  list  was  handed  in  to  the  Consociation  according  to  their  direction.  I  was  with 
Mr.  Willson  the  whole  of  the  time  of  hit  stay  at  Capt.  Tyler's,  and  am  certain  that  he 
did  not  there  do  any  thing  that  could  give  co'tjur  to  the  above  Result. 

"  With  respect  to  the  circumstance  of  a  paper,  which  was  afterwards  presented  to 
Mr.  Willson,  while  at  dinner  at  his  own  table,  having  this  inscription,  « three  more 
names,'  it  was  apparent  from  Mr.  Willson's  immediate  declaration,  that  he  did  not  un- 
derstand that  it  came'  from  the  Consociation  ;  and,  with  due  respect  to  that  body,  I 
would  lay,  that  I  conceive,  from  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  very  definitely  stated, 
they  had  no  demand  on  Mr.  Willson  for  one  more  name.  Upon  learning,  however, 
that  the  Consociation  had  received  unfavourable  impressions,  on  account  of  the  returri 
of  the  aforesaid  paper,  without  the  names  a»  required,  Mr.  Nelson  instantly  repaired  to 
Capt.  Tyler's  to  give  an  explanation  ;  and,  within  a  very  few  minutes,  Mr,  WiUsoa 
himself  went  with  the  same  design,  as  he  then  declared.  What  there  took  place,  others 
must  jtestify.     Thi&  gives  my  view  ot  the  subject  so  far  u  it  can  be  doue  vu  few 

14 


106 

Having  related  the  principal  circumstances  and  iiltimalQ 
failure  of  an  attempt  ibr  a  Mutual   Council,  I  shall  close 
with  a  few  observations  upon  the  "agreement,"  from  which i 
Mr.  Willson  is  said  to  have  receded. 

The  Consociation  declare  in  their  Result,  that  they  ac- 
ceded to  the  proposition  for  a  Mutual  Council ;  but  that 
*'  Mr.  Willson,  on  his  part,  in  their  apprehension,  receded 
fi-om  the  conciliatory  terms  In  the  agiuenient."  I  think  it 
proper  here  to  observe,  that  if  the  Consociation  had  ac- 
ceded to  the  proposal,  it  was  a  fact  knoxvn  only  to  them- 
selves* It  was  not  made,  known  to  the  parties,  until  they 
published  their  Result. 

The  Consociation,  referring  to  their  acceptance  of  the 
proposal,,  speak  of  it  as  an  a'^reement.  But  how  could 
their  acceding  to  the  proposal  be  considered  as  an  agree- 
ment with  Mr.  VVillsoM,  while  it  was  to  him^  and  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  society,  (two  of  the  parties,)  an  entire  secret 'i 
The  fact,  tliat  the  Consociation  had  acceded  to  the  propo- 
sal, was  not  made  known  to  them  in  writing,  by  a  commit^r 
tee,  or  in  any  manner  whatever,  until  tne  Result  was  read 
in  publick.  And  will  the  Consociation  pretend  an  agree- 
ment  with  Mr.  VV.  before  they  had  informed  \\\m.  of  their 
acceptance  of  his  proposal?  The  only  agreement,  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Willson,  to  which  the  Result  refers,  is  contain- 
ed in  the  proposition,  in  which  he  was  jointly  and  mutually 
concerned  with  others.  From  this  proposition  he  did  not 
recede  ;  for  he  never  manifested  a  wish  to  alter ^  or  to  with- 
draw it.  And  if  the  acceptance  of  the  proposal  was  an 
agreement  on  the  part  of  the  Consociation,  why  was  not  the 
agreement  carried  into  effect  ?  The  failure  certainly  was 
was  not  on  /zw  part,  but  their'' s.^ 

The  truth  of  the  case  is,  that  the  proposal  of  Mr.  Will- 
son  in  connexion  with  the  other  parties,  though  it  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Consociation,  could  not  be  binding  upon  him 

Tvotdt.  I  have  endeavoured  to  state  the  case  as  it  was.  In  regard  to  this  particular 
point,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  dtrclaiing  to  all  men  my  conviction  of  Mr.  Willson't 
entire  innocence  of  what  is  charged  upon  hitn.  JOHN  FISKE. 

**  New-Braintiee,  Sept   13,  1817." 

*  It  will  be  recollected,  that,  when  the  Consociation  speak  of  an  agrtement,  frota 
which  Mr.  W.  is  charged  with  receding,  they  could  not  mean  an  agrettntnt  with  the 
other  parties  connected  with  him  in  'he  proposal;  because  all  partes  agrecA  to  the  list 
of  names  that  was  presented,  and  o/ifw/y  </fc'<i/'«(f  their  agreement  befoie  the  Conaocisw 
tioD.  And  none  will  pietcnd  thai  Mr.  \V  ever  suggesied  the  thought  of  receding. 
.^lOtQ  thi*  list,  in  which  be  and  the  other  pauies  had  exptessly  concuiied. 


iiH  the  sense  of  an  agreement^  until  they  had  accepted  it,  and 
their  acceptance  was  ?}iacle  known  to  him.  I  am  therefore 
constrained  to  repeat,  what  I  have  said  before,  that  when 
the  Consociation  charged  Mr.  W.  with  receding  from  the 
terms  of  agreement,  tliey,  in  this  instance,  as  in  all  their  pro- 
ceedings, feU  into  a  great  mistake.  And,  what  was  the 
worst  of  all,  because  they  were  offended  at  a  circumstance 
which  they  would  not  suffer  to  be  explained,  they  employ- 
ed deception,  in  publickly  attributing  the  failure  of  a  Mu- 
tual Council  to  one  that  was  innocent,  and  iu  concealing  the 
conduct  of  those  that  were  actually  guilty. 

In  view  of  the  whole  affair  of  the  proceedings  and  Result 
of  the  Consociation,  what  must  be  the  opinion  of  the  seri- 
ous and  candid  ?  Where  is  the  wisdom,  integrity,  and  dis- 
interestedness of  this  Christian  assembly  ?  In  what  part  of 
the  history  of  their  proceedings  do  we  discover  the  impor- 
tant and  inseparable  connexion  hctwt^nfaith  and  works  ?^ 
a  connexion  which  Christianity  has  established,  and  which 
is  not  to  be  regarded  with  indifference  and  neglect. 

What  can  we  think  of  the  injustice  and  dissimulation 
that  are  sometimes  employed  with  all  the  solemnity  and 
sanctions  of  religion,  to  answer  the  purpose  of  a  party '? 
Are  these  the  means  which  Christianity  has  authorized,  to 
preserve  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church  ?  How  far  the 
piety  and  sincerity  of  a  Christian  may  be  accompanied,  in 
particular  cases,  with  an.  intolerant  and  exclusive  spirit,  it  is 
not  within  the  province  of  human  wisdom  to  decide.  But 
when  this  spirit  has  gained  a  powerful  ascendancy  in  the 
character  of  an  individual,  or  of  a  deliberative  assembly  ; 
\\\\(tv\  faith  is  exalted  above  works,  orthoaoxy  above  char- 
ity, and  oppression  above  law  ;  and  when  the  purposes  of 
Christian  piety  are  to  be  promoted  by  artifice  and  collusion — • 
it  is  time  for  the  friends  of  religious  liberty  to  awake  and 
inquire  ;  to  understand  and.  to  estimate  the  worth  of  their 
Christian  rights ;  and  against  every  claim  of  usurpation, 
every  effort  of  arbitrary  power,  to  stand  firmly  in  their  de- 
fence. 

What  must  be  our  opinion  of  that  system  of  intolerance 
and  despotism,  which  aspires  to  supreme  dominion  in  the 
-church  ? — a  system  that  would  bind  "  souls  in  fetters  ;'* 
,that  aims  at  nothing  short  of  the  imprisonment  of  the  hu- 
tman  mind ;  that  calls  upon  the  sincere  inquirer  after  truths 


108 

to  lay  aside  his  understanding;,  and  to  resign  the  liberty, 
the  atmosphere  of  a  free  spirit  ?  Patiently  to  acquiesce  ia 
such  an  attempt  upon  our  Christian  and  unalienable  rights, 
is  virtually  to  renounce  the  faith  ;  to  abandon  the  highest 
interests  of  the  re)  itrion  we  profess;  and,  instead  of  adher- 
ing to  the  aiithontij  of  our  Master  -who  is  in  heaven^  tame- 
ly to  submit  our  consciences  to  the  fallible  guidance  of  hu- 
man authority,  to  the  high  and  imperious  claims  of  ecclesi- 
astical domination. 

In  closing  this  review  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Consoci- 
ation of  Windham  County,  I  shall  not  be  satisfied  without 
expressing  a  favourable  opinion  of  the  character  of  2Wzi?zfl?w- 
als  of  that  ecclesiastical  body,  with  whom  I  have  been  per- 
sonally acquainted  ;  whose  piety  and  Christian  attainments, 
as  well  as  general  usefulness,  I  still  hold  in  respectful  esti- 
mation. Though  the  whole  Consociation  are  necessarily 
included  in  the  general  censure  contained  in  the  review,  I 
still  feel  a  degree  of  satisfaction  in  the  belief,  that  several 
of  that  body  hhd  so  much  discernment  and  Christian  mod- 
eration, as  not  to  concur  in  the  Result.  And  even  with  re- 
spect to  those  that  concurred  in  it,  it  is  not  for  me  to  de- 
termine how  far,  in  this  particular  instance,  they  might  be 
'actuated  by  a  persecuting  spirit,  through  a  blind  and  impa- 
tient zeal  for  the  honour  of  their  Saviour  ;  and  yet,  in  their 
general  disposition  and  deportment,  have  a  fair  claim  to 
the  character  of  sincere  Christians.  I  remember  the  ex- 
ample of  James  and  John,  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  who 
thought  to  recommend  themselves  to  their  Master  by  their 
zeal  to  destroy  the  Samaritans.  These  disciples  supposed 
that  they  were  offering  the  highest  proof  of  friendship  and 
fidelity  to  their  Lord,  in  asking  his  permission,  "  that  they 
Xnight  command  fire  to  come  down  from  heaven  to  con- 
sume the  Samaritans,"  because  of  their  disrespect  to  him, 
in  refusing  him  an  entrance  into  their  village.  But  Jesus 
rebuked  them,  informing  them,  that  "  they  knew  not  what 
manner  of  spirit  they  were  of;"  and  "that  the  Son  of  Man 
came  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them."  In 
this  we  have  an  example  of  a  spirit  of  persecution  in  the 
disciples  of  Jesus,  acting  under  the  influence  of  a  high  re- 
spect for  the  honour  of  their  Lord.  This  spirit  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  to  the  nature  and  ge- 
liius  of  his  religion  ;  and  when  it  becomes  a  habitual  and 


10^ 

governing  principle,  and  whether  it  fastens  its  malignant  po^'-- 
er  upon  Xha  characters  or  lives  oi  men,  it  is,  in  my  apprehen- 
sion, infinitely  more  dangerous  and  destructive  in  its  ef- . 
fects  upon  those  that  are  governed  by  it,  than  a  mere  er- 
rour  of  opinion  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity. 

The  ministers  and  brethren  of  the  Council  at  Brooklyn, 
will  not,  I  hope,  be  offended  at  an  expression  of  my  regard 
for  their  usefulness  and  happiness  in  their  several  stations. 
As  an  expression  of  my  best  wishes  for  their  influence  and 
success  in  the  cause  of  Christian  piety  and  benevolence,  I 
now  take  my  leave  of  them,  praying  that  they  may  possess 
"the  spirit  of  power,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind.'* 
*'  And  this  I  pray,  that  their  love  may  abound  yet  more 
and  more  in  knowledge,  and  in  all  judgment ;  that  thev 
may  approve  things  that  are  excellent ;  that  they  may 
be  sincere  and  without  offence  until  the  day  of  Christ ; 
being  filled  with  the  fruits  of  righteousness,  which  are  by 
Jesus  Christ,  unto  the  glory  and  praise  of  God."  "  That 
they  may  put  on,  as  the  elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved, 
bowels  of  mercies,  kindness,  humbleness  of  mind,  meek- 
ness, long-suffering ;  forbearmg  one  another,  and  forgiv- 
ing one  another;  and,  above  all  things,  put  on  charity^ 
which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness;"  and  that,  "  whatsoever 
they  do,  in  word  or  deed,"  they  may  "  do  all  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  givingthanksto  God  and  the  Father  by  him." 

After  the  Result  of  the  Consociation,  Mr.  W.  the  junior 
pastor,  in  view  of  the  circumstances  attending  his  situa- 
tion, did  not  think  it  adviseable  to  continue  his  pubhck 
services  in  the  character  of  a  Christian  teacher,  as  he  had 
done  before.  The  advice  of  friends,  whose  judgment  ht 
respected,  in  agreement  with  his  own  opinion,  induced 
him  to  suspend,  at  least  for  a  time,  the  performance  of 
some  of  the  ordinary  and  appropriate  duties  of  liis  pastoral 
office.  Mr.  W.  from  the  information  he  had  obtained, 
(though  his  information,  from  the  short  time  he  had  to  ac- 
quire it,  was  not  so  particular  and  extensive  as  he  wished,) 
was,  in  general,  satisfied,  that  the  Consociation  had  not  ju- 
risdiction, according  to  what  is  called  the  constitution  of 
the  churches,  the  fair  principles  of  ecclesiastical  usage, 
and  the  obvious  rules  of  Christian  discipline.  But  different 
opinions  respecting  the  power  of  the  Consociation  were 
cQjifidently  expressed.     From  this  diversity  of  opinion, 


110 

^Ir.  W.  was  not  without  apprthension,  that  the  civil  au- 
thority would  ultimately  recognize  their  decision,  and  sub- 
ject him  to  the  inconvenience  of  a  dismissed  minister. 
He  tlierefore  thought  it  safe  and  expedient,  considering 
his  limited  acquaintance  with  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
institutions  of  the  state,  to  omit  his  usual  services  upon  the 
sabbath,  until  the  church,  or  society,  at  a  publick  meeting, 
should  formally  and  expressly  claim  them  ;  or  until  he 
could  have  time  more  fully  to  inform  himself  upon  the 
subject.  He  adopted  this  course,  rather  than  to  put  at 
hazard  his  reputation  and  future  prospects,  in  leading  the 
way  to  a  doubtful  contest  in  law. 

I  will  here  add,  that  Mr.  W.  considered  it  best  for  him- 
self, and  for  the  society  with  which  he  was  connected,  so 
far  ti»  regard  the  Result  of  the  Consociation,  as  to  take 
measures  for  his  regular  dismission,  by  calling  a  Mutual 
Council  to  dissolve  his  pastoral  relation,  and  to  place  him 
m  fair  standing  as  a  Christian  minister  in  the  congregation- 
al churches  of  our  country.  Weary  of  a  controversy  that 
bad  been  continued,  on  the  part  of  the  opposition,  with 
the  most  subtle  and  obstinate  perseverance  ;  entertaining 
no  hope  tliat  the  opposition  would  cease  ;  and  apprehend- 
ing;: that  the  Result  of  the  Consociation  might  strengthen 
and  increase  the  disaffection  that  existed,  as  it  was  un- 
doubtedly intended  by  those  that  formed  it ;  he  thought  it 
fcest  for  the  society,  that  they  should  consent  to  his  dis- 
jnission,  and  use  their  endeavours  to  obtain  another  minis- 
ter, in  whom  they  would  probably  be  more  united.  The 
individuals  to  whom  he  expressed  his  sentiments  upon  this 
subject,  were  of  a  different  opinion.  They  considered, 
that  the  adoption  of  such  a  measure  would  be  paying  too 
inuch  respect  to  usiwpation — to  an  assumed  ecclesiastical 
dominiony  that  had  no  countenance  in  reason,  religion,  or 
law. 

Mr.  W.  considering  him.self  as  a  party,  and  having  a  re- 
gard to  his  professional  character  and  standing  in  the  Chris- 
tian community,  did  not  think  it  expedient  to  take  upon 
himself  the  responsibility  of  publickly  bidding  defiance  to 
the  decision  of  an  ecclesiastical  body,  respectable  for  the 
number  and  general  character  of  its  members,  and  high  in 
its  claims  of  jurisdiction.  With  whatever  confidence  he 
might  have  relied  upon  the  general  support  of  the  society 


Ill 

of  which  he  was  a  pastor,  yet  this  would  not  relieve  him  in 
his  publick  character  as  a  minister,  beyond  the  limits  of 
his  own  parish. 

I  believe  it  will  be  generally  agreed,  that  the  Consocia* 
tion,  who  publickly  denounced  Mr.  W.  as  disqualified  for 
the  niinistry,  had  actually  injured  him,,  in  an  ecclesiastical 
point  of  view,  in  his  professional  rights.  And  on  the  prin- 
ciple, that  the  Consociation  had  no  proper  or  constitutional 
authority  to  depose  him  from  his  pastoral  office,  yet  their 
decision,  as  a  publick  act,  had  all  the  solemnity  of  a  legal 
proceeding,  Mr.  W.  in  this  view  of  his  situation,  con- 
sidered it  most  prudent,  and  most  consistent  with  general 
principles  of  order,  not  to  appear  immediately  before  the 
publick  as  judge  in  his  own  case,  in  open  contempt  of  the 
Result  of  the  Consociation,  but  to  appeal  to  a  regular  ec» 
clesiastical  tribunal ;  to  an  association  of  ministei-s,  or  a 
council  of  churches,  to  take  cognizance  of  his  case,  and  to 
determine  his  standing.  This  he  believed  to  be  the  prop- 
er method  of  obtaining  relief  from  the  injury  he  had  sus- 
tained by  the  publick  act  of  the  Consociation.  He  there- 
fore concluded  to  suspend  his  publick  discourses,  and,  in 
due  time,  to  obtain  the  examination  and  decision  of  a  reg- 
ular Council,  relative  to  his  Christian  and  ministerial 
rights. 

On  the  3d  of  March,  a  society  meeting  was  held,  at 
which  the  society  expressed  their  minds  in  a  manner  very 
decided  and  full  against  the  assumed  power  and  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Consociation.  They  declared,  by  vote, 
their  determination  not  to  unite  with  the  church  in  obtaining 
or  settling  another  minister,  until  the  church  should  pub- 
lickly renounce  all  connexion  with  the  Consociation  of 
Windham  County,  annul  their  vote  upon  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  put  themselves  on  the  ground  of  the  cov- 
enant, as  before  said  vote  was  passed ;  the  onli/  covenant 
that  had  been  in  use  as  a  test  of  faith  in  order  to  commu*- 
nion. 

They  also  voted,  that  no  persons  should  hold  religious 
meetings  in  the  meeting-house,  except  the  ministers  of  the 
society,  and  of  the  Eastern  Association  of  the  County  of 
Windham,  without  leave  obtained  of  the  society,,  or  of 
their  committee,  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  granting 
permission,  when  they  should  judge  proper. 


112 

In  consequence  of  the  scruples  of  Mr.  Willson  as  to 
the  expediency  of  continuing  his  publick  discourses  upon 
the  sabbath,  until  his  case  should  be  revised  by  a  regular 
Ecclesiastical  Council ;  and  in  consequence  of  the  infirmi- 
ties of  the  senior  pastor,  who  was  not  able  to  perform  the 
publick  offices  of  a  Christian  minister ;  the  society  had 
been  without  publick  worship  for  several  sabbaths.  In 
this  view  of  their  situation,  they  were  apprehensive  that 
the  individuals  who  had  been  instrumental  in  procuring  a 
decision  against  the  junior  pastor,  would  make  an  attempt 
to  introduce  into  the  meeting-house,  ministers  and  meet- 
ings of  their  own  choice.  Against  any  officiousness,  or  in- 
terference of  this  kind,  the  society  thought  it  prudent  to 
provide,  by  a  publick  declaration  of  their  rights,  and  by 
the  adoption  of  decisive  and  efficient  measures. 

On  the  day  of  the  meeting  of  the  society,  before  the 
meeting  was  formed,  Mr.  VV.  the  junior  pastor,  expressed 
a  wish  to  several  individuals,  that  the  society  would  dis- 
pense with  his  publick  services,  in  the  capacity  of  a  Chris- 
tian teacher,  until  he  :jhould  have  opportunity  to  obtain  ail 
the  information  that  was  desirable,  to  settle  the  question 
relative  to  the  jurisdiction  and  powers  of  the  Consociation, 
to  his  entire  satisfaction.  The  society,  conforming  .to  his 
wishes,  did  not  request  him  to  enter  upon  the  appropriate 
duties  of  publick  instruction,  although  they  were  particu- 
lar to  recognize  him  distinctly  as  their  minister.  They 
also  appointed  a  committee,  at  his  request,  to  unite  with 
him,  and  to  propose  to  the  church  to  unite,  in  adopting 
proper  measures  to  place  him  in  fair  stimding  in  the 
Christian  ministry,  (in  opposition  to  the  Result  of  the  Con- 
sociation,) not  as  a  minister  of  the  church  and  society  in 
Brooklyn,  but  as  one  duly  qualified  for  the  office  of  a 
Christian  teacher. 

Mr.  W.  viewing  the  Consociation  somewhat  in  the  light 
of  an  ex  parte  coimcil,  believed  it  in  a  degree  necessary  to 
obtain  the  decision  of  another  Council,  that  would,  at  least, 
be  as  competent  to  restore  him. to  his  standmg  in  the  min- 
istry, as  the  Consociation  was  to  depose  him.  And  he  re- 
quested the  society  to  unite  with  him  in  pursuance  of  this 
object,  that,  whatever  might  be  the  result  of  the  difficulties 
at  Brooklyn,  and  of  his  connexion  with  the  society  of 
^vhich  he  was  pastor,  he  might  not  (essentially  suifer  in  hiii 


113 

ministerial  character  in  view  of  the  publick,  in  consequence 
of  the  Result  of  the  Council  that  claimed  the  authority  of 
deposing  him  from  the  ministry,  and  of  dismissing  hiru 
from  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  church. 

In  a  short  time  after  the  society  meeting,  Mr.  W.  re- 
ceived a  written  communication  from  a  large  number  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  society,  containing  a  request  that 
publick  worship  might  no  longer  be  discontinued  ;  that  he 
would  go  into  the  meeting-house,  and  perform  the  usual 
services  of  the  sabbath,  except  that  he  might  read  print- 
ed sermons  of  other  authors,  rather  than  deliver  those 
of  his  own  composition.  In  this  communication,  they 
were  particular  in  declaring  their  opinion,  that  he  had  an 
undoubted  right  to  administer  to  them  in  the  official  ca- 
pacity of  a  publick  teacher ;  but  at  the  same  time,  they 
were  willing,  in  conformity  to  his  views,  to  dispense  with 
his  discourses  in  the  office  of  publick  instruction,  until 
something  farther  could  be  done.  Mr.  W.  immediately 
complied  with  their  request. 

At  length,  Mr.  W.  being  absent  on  the  week  of  the  an= 
nual  fast,  (early  in  April,)  the  Rev.  Dr.  Whitney,  the  se- 
nior pastor,  who  had  not  attended  pu!)lick  worship  for 
more  than  a  year,  (except  in  two  instances,  when  the  ju- 
nior pastor  exchanged,)  came  out,  and  performed  the 
ministerial  service  on  the  day  of  the  publick  fast,  and  so 
continued  to  do  upon  sabbaths.  He  was  not,  however, 
able  to  deliver  more  than  one  discourse  upon  a  sabbath 
in  connexion  with  the  other  usual  exercises  of  half  the  dav. 
He  evidently  appeared  in  publick,  to  put  a  stop  to  all  far- 
ther services  of  Mr.  W.  He  openly  and  repeatedly  ex- 
pressed his  disapprobation  of  Mr.  W.'s  reading  sermons, 
and  leading  in  the  devotional  exercises  of  the  congregra- 
tion  ;  declaring  that  it  had  a  tendency  to  keep  up  divis- 
ions ;  though  he  could  find  no  fault,  from  any  information 
that  he  had  received,  with  the  sermons  that  had  been  read, 
or  with  any  peculiarities  in  the  devotional  exercises  of  Mr. 
W.  as  having  such  a  tendency.  Mr.  W.  still  being  desir- 
ed by  many  to  continue  his  publick  exercises  every  sab- 
bath, on  that  part  of  the  day  which  was  not  occupied  by  the 
senior  pastor,  he  continued,  in  accordance  with  the  former 
written  request,  to  read  sermons,  and  to  lead  in  the  usual 
religious  exercises  of  the  congregation.  Thus  Dr,  \V. 
15 


114' 

continued  to  preach,  and  Mr.  W.  to  read  sermons^  for  a 
considerable  time. 

Not  far  from  the  20th  of  Afay,  Mr.  W.  and  tlie  com- 
mittee  had  a  meeting  to  take  into  consideration  suitable 
measures  to  be  adopted  to  place  liini  in  regular  standing, 
as  one  qualified  to  preach  the  gospel.  After  due  consulta- 
tion, they  supposed  it  proper  to  call  an  Ecclesiastical  Coun- 
cil for  that  purpose.  But  being  anxious  that  the  divisions 
in  the  church  and  society  might  be  healed  ;,  that  the  par- 
ties at  variance  might  be  reconciled,  and  peace  and  tran- 
quillity be  again  restored  upon  those  liberal  principles, 
which  had  always  been  the  bond  of  union  in  the  choice  of 
a  minister,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  Christian  privileges ; 
they  concluded  to  request  the  appointment  of  a  society 
meetings  that  they  might  report  to  the  society  the  result  of 
their  deliberations,  and,  particularly,  propose  a  method  of 
reconciliation,  which  they  hoped  the  society,  the  aggrieved 
brethren,  and  the  church,  would  readily  approve,  A  so- 
ciety meeting  was  held,  and  the  committee  made  their  re- 
port, proposing  a  method  for  the  settlement  of  difficulties.. 
The  report  was  approved  and  accepted  by  a  vote  of  the  so- 
eiet}'.     The  report  and  acceptance  were  as  follow  : 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  society  agreeable  to  the  foregoing 
warning,  on  the  12th  of  June,  1817,  C*apt,  Shubael  Brown, 
Moderator — 

''*■  Foted,  to  accept  the  following  Report,  viz. 

*  To  the  Inhabitants  of  the  First  Ecclesiastical  Society  in 
the  town  of  Brooklyn^  now  legally  assembled  in  society, 
meeting. 

•^  We  the  subscribers,  the  committee  appointed  by  said 
sCJciety  to  agree  with  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  upon 
such  measures,  as  we  should  think  proper  to  be  adopted 
to  restore  him  to  a  regular  standing  in  the  Christian  min-- 
istry,  as  one  qualified  to  preach  the  gosj)el ;  and  also  to 
propose  to  the  chureh  to  concur  with  us  in  the  measure, 
and  for  the  purpose  aforesaid  ;  and  authorized  by  a  vote  of 
the  society  to  carry  into  effect  such  measures  as  we  should 
deem  necessary  in  the  matters  aforesaid  ;  have  thought  it 
best,  from  a  view  of  our  present  situation,  before  we  pro- 
ceed to  act  in  the  case,  to  lay  before  the  society  the  re- 
sult of  our  deliberations  upon  the  subject.. 


115 

^  We  therefore  state  to  the  society,  that,  upon  dtie  con-. 
sideratioii  of  the  trust  committed  to  us,  we  have  agreed 
with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson,  that  it  is  expedient  to  call  an 
Ecclesiastical  Council,  to  examine  the  proceedings  and 
Result  of  the  late  Consociation  held  in  February  last,  and 
to  declare  in  favour  of  his  regular  standing  in  the  Christian 
ministry,  in  opposition  to  their  Result,  should  they  find, 
upon  examination,  that  the  proceedings  and  Result  of  said 
Consociation  were  not  in  conformity  to  ec::lesiastical  usage, 
and  to  the  rules  and  maxims  of  the  Christian  religion. 
We  have  come  to  such  a  conclusion  and  agreement,  from 
a  regard  to  the  request  of  Mn  Willson,  from  a  conviction 
of  the  propriety  and  importaitce  of  such  a  measure  upon 
general  principles  of  order,  and  with  a  view  to  place  him 
.in  good  standing,  as  a  Christian  teacher,  in  the  congrega- 
tional churches  of  our  country.  Viewing  the  decision  of 
the  late  Consociation,  touching  the  ministerial  character  of 
Mr.  Willson,  (declaring  him  disqualified  for  the  office  of  a 
teacher  in  the  Christian  church,)  unauthorized  and  unjust, 
v/e  think  it  proper,  agreeable  to  order,  and  for  the  honour 
of  religion,  to  call  a  regular  Ecclesiastical  Council  to  take 
cognisance  of  the  case,  and  to  place  the  character  of  Mr. 
Willson  on  sucli  ground,  as  they  may  deem  consistent 
with  their  duty  and  responsibility,  and  the  general  interest 
of  religion.  While  we  agree  in  the  above  measure  as 
proper  to  be  adopted,  and  carried  into  execution,  we  still 
wish  it  to  be  waved,  and  the  execution  of  it  deferred,  (if  it 
may  be  thought  best,)  until  one  attempt  more  is  made,  up- 
on what  we  consider  just  and  conciliatory  principles,  for 
the  reconciliation  of  the  parties  at  variance,  and  for  the  res- 
toration of  peace  and  order  in  this  religious  society. 

*  We  therefore  beg  leave  respectfully  to  submit  to  the 
consideration  of  this  society,  with  the  hope  of  their  appro- 
bation and  sanction,  what  we  consider  a  reasonable  and 
lionourable  method  of  healing  and  terminating  existing  dif- 
ficulties among  us,  so  far  as  these  difficulties  arise  from  a 
division  with  respect  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson.  We  there- 
fore, in  agreement  with  Mr.  Willson,  suggest  and  propose 
the  following,  as  the  most  probable  method  that  occurs  to 
i!s  (should  it  be  adopted  by  all  concerned)  of  restoring 
peace  and  tranquillity  to  the  people  in  this  place.  With  a 
view  to  an  object  so  important  as  the  union  of  this  church 


116 

and  society  in  the  choice  and  support  of  a  Christian  minis- 
ter, we  think  it  expedient  and  absokitely  necessary,  that 
the  church  declare  themselves  entirely  disconnected  with 
the  Consociation  of  Windliam  County,  which  pretend  to 
claim  jurisdiction  over  them  ;  that  they  also  annul  the  vote 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  passed  February,  1816, 
and  put  themselves  on  the  covenant,  as  before  said  vote 
'was  passed ;  and  unite  with  the  society  in  calling  the  Coun- 
cil that  ordained  Mr.  Willson,^  to  examine  into  the  pro- 
ceedings and  Result  of  the  Consociation  with  respect  to 
him,  to  dissolve  his  pastoral  relation  to  this  people,  and  to 
recommend  him,  or  not,  in  the  character  of  a  Christian 
teacher,  as  they  shall  judge  proper.  We  have  been  in- 
duced and  have  presumed  to  recommend  the  above  meas- 
ure, from  the  hope,  that  those  who  arc  opposed  to  Mr. 
Willson's  ministry,  would  readily  concur  in  it;  and  from 
the  conviction,  that  the  dismission  of  Mr.  W.  upon  the 
aforesaid  projxisals  being  complied  with,  and  upon  the  fair 
principles  of  impartiality  and  mutual  agreement,  would 
contribute  to  the  interest  and  happiness  of  this  religious 
society. 

"  Should  the  method  proposed  meet  the  approbation  of 
the  parties  concerned,  we  should  indulge  the  hope  of  see- 
ing this  people  again  united  in  the  choice  of  a  minister, 
upon  those  conciliatory  and  liberal  principles,  which  we 
had  ever  considered  the  basis  and  bond  of  union  among 

*  The  Council  that  ordained  Mr.  Willson  was  proposed,  because  this  Council  was 
known,  and  had  been  uniformly  acknowledged  by  all  parties,  to  be  Trinitarian.  The 
aggrieved  brethren  and  the  church  could  therefore  unite  in  this  Council,  without  sub- 
jecting ihemselvej  to  the  imputation  of  renouncing  their  Trinitarian  principles.  It 
■was  hoped  and  believed,  that,  for  the  sake  of  peace  upon  fair  principles,  and  of  union 
>viih  ihe  society  in  the  choice  of  a  minister,  they  would  at  c»ce  be  satisfied  with  the 
same  Council  to  dismiss  Mr.  Willson,  in  which  they  readily  united  to  ordain  him. 
The  proposition  was  ultimately  laid  before  them,  but  they  did  not  agree  to  it. 

The  aggrieved  brethren  considered  the  Consociation  a  very  suitable  Council  to  dismiss 
Mr.  W.  from  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  ckurch,  though,  with  a  single  exception,  the 
pastors  that  composed  that  Council  (several  ol  them  the  nearest  neighbours  to  Brooklyn) 
were  treated  by  the  church,  at  the  time  when  arrangements  were  made  for  his  ordina- 
tion, with  open  neglect.  None  of  them  (except  one)  were  invited  by  the  church  to  as- 
sist in  his  ordination,  because  they  were  considered  Hopkiusians.  But  when  these 
Hopkinsians  had  joined  a  few  of  the  good  people  in  Brooklyn,  in  their  endeavours  to 
excite  the  opinion  of  the  publick  agaifist  their  junior  pastor  for  his  Aiian  heresy,  (as  it 
•was.  called,)  they  were  thought  to  be  the  beit  men  and  best  judges  that  could  be  employ- 
ed to  take  cognizance  ot  his  errours,  and  to  pronounce  sentence  against  him  as  a  dan- 
gerous man.  Arid  besides,  these  ministers  (if  they  had  not  offered  their  services  in  the 
■work  of  judgment)  were  very  willing  to  come  at  the  request  of  their  brethren,  with 
%vhom  they  most  cordially  sympathized,  and  for  whose  relief  they  felt  it  their  duty  to 
unite  their  most  faithful  and  persevciing  exertions. 


iilr 

this  people.  Should  the  method  of  reconciliation  proposed, 
be  approved  by  the  society  and  obtain  their  sanction,  but 
meet  with  opposition  from  those  who  have  been  accustom- 
ed to  style  themselves  the  aggrieved ;  or  should  the  ag- 
grieved approve  of  the  plan  suggested,  and  concur  with 
the  society,  and  yet  the  church  refuse  to  act  upon  it ;  we 
submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  society,  the  propriety 
and  expediency  of  uniting  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson,  in 
calling  an  Ecclesiastical  Council,  as  soon  as  may  be  con- 
venient, to  take  cognizance  and  determine  in  regard  to  his 
ministerial  character,  to  express  their  opinion  upon  sub- 
jects of  interest  and  importance  to  the  society,  and  to  afford 
us  their  advice  in  our  present  situation.  All  which  is 
submitted  by  your  humble  servants, 

Roger  IF.  JFilliams,'^ 

John  Parish, 

Aaron  Davison, 

John  IFuiiamSf  )>  Committee. 

Joab  Fasset, 

Benjamin  Gilbert, 

Nathan   Witter,  Jun.  ^ 

*  The  above  approved  and  concurred  in. 

'  LUTHER  WILLSON. 
'■Brooklyn,  June  I2th,  1817.' 

"  The  above  is  a  true  copy  of  record. 

"  ELEAZER  MATHER,  Societij  Clerk. 
"■Juneau,  1818." 

The  society,  upon  their  acceptance  of  this  report  of  their 
committee,  passed  a  vote,  "  that  they  would  unite  with  the 
church  in  calling  a  Council  to  dismiss  Mr.  Willson,  pro- 
vided the  aggrieved  brethren  would  agree  with  the  other 
members  of  the  church,  in  declaring  the  church  entirely 
disconnected  with  the  Consociation  of  W  indham  County, 
who  claimed  jurisdiction  over  them  ;  also  annul  their  vote 
respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  put  themselves 
on  the  covenant,  as  before  said  vote  was  passed  ;  and  unite 
with  the  society. in  calling  the  Council  that  ordained  Mr. 
Willson,  to  dissolve  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  people  in 
Brooklyn,  to  examine  into  the  proceedings  and  Result  of 
the  Consociation  with  respect  to  him,  and  to  recommend 


118^ 

fiirni,  or  not,  in  the  character  of  a  Christian  minister,  as 
ihcy  sliould  judge  proper." 

A  committee  was  appointed  by  the  society  to  lay  the 
vote  containing  the  above  proposition  before  the  aggrieved 
brethren  and  Dr.  Whitney,  and  afterwards  (if  they  thought 
proper)  before  the  church,  to  see  if  they  would  agree  to 
the  proposition.  The  committee  were  to  use  their  en- 
deavours to  effect  a  reconciliation  and  agreement,  and  to 
ie[)ort  to  the  society.  The  society  meeting  was  adjourned 
to  the  26th  of  June.  At  the  adjourned  meeting,  the  com- 
mittee made  their  report.  No  agreement  was  effected. 
The  aggrieved  brethren.  Dr.  Whitney,  and  the  church, 
-^vould  not  agree  to  the  proposition  on  the  part  of  the  so- 
ciety. 

The  church  had  a  meeting,  previous  to  the  adjourned 
-meeting  of  the  society,  on  the  same  day ;  at  which  they  ex- 
pressed their  disapprobation  of  Mr.  Willson's  perform- 
ing publick  services  on  the  sabbath,  as  he  had  done  for 
scymt  time,  in  reading  sermons,  and  leading  in  the  exer- 
cises of  publick  worship.^     The  society  voted,  immedi- 

*  The  vote  of  the  church,  attested  at  the  time  it  was  passed,  was  as  follows: 

««  June  s5,  1817 — footed,  That  they"  (the  church)  "  disapproved  of  Mr.  WiIhoa'« 
o^ciaiing  on  sabbaths,  as  he  had  done  for  some  time  past. 

•'  Attest,  JOSIAM  WHITNEY,  Pastor." 

The  following  was  the  vote  of  the  ehurch,  as  it  was  entered  upon  the  book  of  rec- 
ttrds  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Whitney,  their  pastor  :  "  The  following  question  was  put  to  the 
ichuich — Da  you  approve  or  disapprove  of  Mr.  Willion'a  going  into  the  meeting-house, 
aiid  oHiciating  on  sabbaths,  as  he  has  done  for  some  time  past,  aince  hii  dismission  by 
the  Consociation  ?  Voted  in  the  negative. " 

It  will  be  observed,  that  the  pastor,  in  entering  the  vote  of  the  chnrch  upon  the  book 
of  Kcords,  added  the  following  important  clause,  "  since  his  dismission  by  the  Con- 
eociaticm."  By  this  addition,  the  records  represent  the  church  as  having  recognized, 
by  their  vote,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Consociation,  and  the  correctness  of  their  decision, 
rdative  to  the  ministerial  character  of  the  junior  pastor  ;  whereas  the  church  had  nev- 
«r,  by  any  publick  act,  directly  acknowledged  the  authority  of  the  Consociation  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  V/ilbon  ;  and  the  senior  pastor  himself,  only  a  few  years  before,  by  his 
corcurrcr.ee  in  the  vote  of  an  Association,  which  was  moved  by  him,  expressly  de- 
clared his  deierminztion  to  resist  the  claims  of  the  Consociation,  as  an  unscriptural  and 
oaauthorized  tribunal.     (See  the  vote  of  the  Association,  page  64  of  this  Review.) 

The  above  is  one  of  several  important  instances  of  an  incorrect  record,  made  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Whitney,  the  pastor  of  the  church.  I  mention  this  instance,  as  I  have  before 
mentioned  omissions,  that  the  next  generation  (should  it  ever  come  to  a  knowledge  of 
this  review)  may  not  rely  with  implicit  confidence  upon  the  records  of  the  church,  as 
containing  a  coriect  and  entiie  representation  of  its  proceedings  in  the  late  coutrovcrsy 
lesppcting  the  junior  pastor. 

It  is  with  serious  regret  that  I  have  bad  occasion  to  make  use  of  the  name  of  the 
Fev,  Dr.  Whitney,  as  having  a  p.nrt  in  the  history  of  the  lau  controversy.  The  part 
that  he  Kas  taken  in  the  late  difiiculty  at  Brooklyn,  was  what  Mr.  W.  the  junior  pas> 
tor  cculd  never  have  expected,  from  his  acquaintance  and  connexion  with  him  for 
several  vtsrs  in  the  duties  of  the  pastoral  office.  Until  the  la  e  controversy  com- 
menced, ih;  pastors  had  been  associated,  as  was  supposed  by  Mr.  W.  in  entire  friend- 
ship ^cd  cordiality,  notwithstanding  their  difference  of  opinion,  for  some  lime  before 


119 

ately  after,  to  request  Mr.  Willson  to  preach,  in  the  same 
manner  as  hedid  previously  to  the  meeting  of  the  Consoci  ^ 
ation,  when  the  pulpit  was  not  occupied  by  Dr.  W.  the  se- 
nior pastor.  Mr.  W.  having  become  entirely  satisfied, 
that  the  Consociation  had  no  jurisdiction  that  could  affect 
his  pastoral  relation  to  the  society,  who  claimed  him  as 
their  minister,  was  ready  to  perform  the  publick  duties  of 
a  minister  at  their  request. 

The  individuals  who  moved  that  Mr.  Willson  should 
be  requested  to  preach,  had  not  the  least  expectation,  at 
the  time  the  motion  was  made,  that  Dr.  Whitney,  the  se- 
nior pastor,  would  be  able  to  preach  more  than  half  the 
day,  each  sabbath  ;  as  he  had  repeatedly  declared,  that  he 
could  not  preach  more  than  one  sermon  a  day.  But  to 
prevent  Mr.  W.  from  preaching,  he,  from  that  time,  con- 
tinued to  perform  the  morning  and  evening  services  of  ev- 
ery sabbath  through  the  summer.  At  the  advanced  age  of 
eighty.five,  he  literally  endured  the  burden  and  heat  oV  the 
day  through  the  warm  season,  except  in  two  instances, 
when  he  introduced  other  gentlemen  to  preach,  directly- 
contrary  to  a  vote  of  the  society  in  March,  and  a  publick 
request  of  the  society  in  June. 

By  every  possible  management  of  the  aggrieved  breth- 
ren at  their  private  meetings,  after  their  attempts  to  ac- 
complish their  purpose  at  pubHck  meetings  had  failed ;  by 
the  effects  produced  from  the  Result  of  the  Consociation  ^ 
and  by  the  private  and  publick  influence  of  Dr.  Whitney, 
the  senior  pastor,  in  favour  of  the  views  and  wishes  of  the 
aggrieved  brethren ;  a  majority  of  the  church  had  novv? 
-ipenly  taken  their  stand  against  the  junior  pastor.  They; 
had  publickly  disapproved  of  his  services,  and  had  refused 
to  unite  in  calling  a  Mutual  Council ;  while  the  society 
claimed  and  supported  him  as  their  minister. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  society,  26th  of  June,  a  commit- 
tee was  appointed  to  unite  with  Mr.  Willson  in  (tailing  arv 
Ecclesiastical  Council,  to  examine  into  the  proceedings  of 

Mr.  W.'«  change  of  lentiraents  was  made  publick,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity. 
And,  in  my  opinion,  the  best  apology  that  can  be  offered  for  this  aged  and  reverend 
gentleman,  who  had  formerly  been  highly  respected  by  many,  and  cfnstueJ  by  oth- 
ers, for  his  liberality  in  matters  of  faith,  is  the  particular  influence  of  a  few  meinbe.s  of 
the  church  ;  upon  whose  partial  and  disingenuous  representations  respecting  Mr.  W. 
and  the  divisions  in  the  church  and  society,  he  had  relied  with  too  much  confidence  • 
and  in  whoje  interests  and  feelings,  sanctified  bv  the  sacred  name  of  conscience,  hs 
had,  from  long  babiUof  imimtcy  ind  local  attachments,  too  strongly  parlicipatcd. 


120 

the  Consociation,  to  give  their  advice  and  to  express  their 
opinion  upon  matters  of  interest  and  importance  to  the  so- 
ciety. I'he  society  also  voted,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  VV. 
that,  if  the  Council  advised  to  his  dismission,  they  should 
proceed  to  dissolve  his  pastoral  relation. 

About  the  middle  of  July,  Mr.  Willson  and  the  com- 
mittee agreed  upon  a  Mutual  Council,  to  convene  on  the 
17th  of  September.  They  sent  letters  to  nine  churches.* 
Keceiving  information  that  several  of  the  pastors  could  not 
attend  at  the  time  appointed,  they  sent  letters  to  two  more. 
On  the  17th  of  September,  the  pastors  and  delegates  of  but 
three  of  the  churches  sent  to,  arrived.!  Mr.  W.  and  the 
committee  agreed  to  request  the  pastors  and  delegates  who 
were  present,  to  form  a  Council,  They  accordingly  form- 
ed, and  the  following  was  their  Result : 

"RESULT  OF  COUNCIL. 

**  In  pursuance  of  a  letter  missive  from  the  committee 
of  the  First  Ecclesiastical  Society  in  Brooklyn,  Connecti- 
cut, and  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson,  the  following  individu- 
als assembled  at  the  house  of  John  Parish,  Esq.  in  said 
town,  Sept.  17,  1817,  viz. 

"  From  the  church  of  Shrewsbury,  Rev.  JOSEPH  SUM- 
NER, D.D.  Pc^^or— Brother  Thomas  W.  Ward,  DeU 
egate. 

*'  From  the  2d  church  of  Worcester,  AARON  BAN- 
CROFT, D.  D.  Pc^^or— Deacon  William  Trow- 
bridge, Delegate, 

"  From  the  1st  Congregational  Church  of  Providence, 
Rev.  HENRY  EDES,  Pfl-^^or— Brother  Joseph  Cady, 
jun.  Delegate, 

*  I  will  here  note,  that  letters,  containing  copies  of  the  letter  sent  to  the  churches, 
were  seasonably  forwarded  to  the  aggrieved  brethren,  the  moderator  of  the  Consocia- 
tion, and  Dr,  Whitney,  that  they  might  have  opportunity  to  make  any  representation 
that  they  pleased,  before  the  Council  to  be  convened,  relative  to  the  decision  of  the 
Consociation,  and  the  business  and  objects  for  which  the  Council  was  called. 

+  On  the  next  week  after  the  Council,  iv/o  pastors  of  churches  sent  to,  came  to 
Brooklyn,  and  the  pastor  and  delegate  of  an'thsr  church  arrived  at  Providence  on  their 
way;  and  there  being  informed  that  the  Cotincil  had  tijeL  the  week  before,  they  pro- 
ceeded no  farther,  but  immediately  returned.  Had  it  not  been  for  an  unfortunate 
misunderstanding  as  to  the  litne  the  Council  were  to  convene,  (which  I  shall  not  here 
be  pjrticular  to  explain,)  a  majority  of  the  chufchcs  sent  to  would  have  been  present  in 
Council  by  tbeir  pastors  and  delegates.. 


-•     121 

^*  It  became  a  question,  whether  it  be  expedient  fof  tb? 
above  individuals  to  form  into  a  Council,  they  being  a  mi^ 
nor  part  of  the  churches  to  which  the  letter  missive  was 
addressed. 

"  While  in  conversation  on  this  subject,  they  received 
the  following  communication  from  the  committee  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Willson : 

'BrooJdijJi,  Sept,  17,  1817. 
*  To  the  Rev.  Gentlemen  and  Delegates  present  frorii 
several  of  the  churches,  to  which  we  sent  letters,  applying 
for  their  assistance  and  advice  by  the  attendance  of  their 
Rev.  Pastors  and  Delegates  to  join  in  council— we  present 
the  following  request,  (respectfully  submitting  it  to  the 
consideration  of  the  gentlemen  present,)  that  they  form  a 
Council  to  examine  and  result  upon  the  subjects  proposed 
for  their  investigation,  opinion  and  advice,  as  contained  in 
the  letter  missive, 

Joh?!  Parish,  ll 

Roger  IF.  Williams,  \ 
Benjamin  Gilbert,      >>^  ^"'^^^^'^ 
John  kViUiams^ 
Shubael  Brown^         J 
*  Luther  JFillsoUj  in  concurrence  with  the  committee.* 

"  In  consequence  of  the  above  request,  the  Counci! 
formed,  by  electing  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sumner,  IVIoderator,  and 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Bancroft,  Scribe, 

*'  Adjourned  to  the  meeting-house. 

"  The  scribe  was  appointed  a  committee  to  wait  upon  the 
Rev.- Dr.  Whitney,  to  inform  him  that  the  Council  was  in 
session,  and  ready  to  attend  to  the  publick  hearing. 

"  The  Rev.  moderator  opened  the  business  with  prayer. 

"  The  Council  patiently  and  seriously  attended  to  the 
communications  of  the  committee  of  the  society  and  pas- 
tor. After  a  full  liearing  of  a  narrative  of  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  respecting  existing  difficulties- — adjourned 
to  the  house  of  John  Parish,  Esq. 

"  Upon  due  deliberation— Fo^^f/,  unanimously,  the  fol- 
lowing as  the  Result  of  Council : 

"  This  Council  has  been  deeply  impressed  by  the  pub- 
lick  hearing,  to  which  they  have  attended  at  the  particular 
request  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson,  and  the  committee  of  the 
16 


122 

society ;  and  the}'  feel  the  greatest  s}'mpath}r  for  them  un- 
der  the  severe  conflicts  with  which  Divine  Providence  has 
permitted  their  Christian  faith  and  constancy  to  be  tri- 
cd.  But,  as  the  Council  is  composed  of  a  minor  part  of 
the  churches  whose  assistance  and  advice  were  expected;, 
they  deem  it  improper  for  them  to  give  any  opinion  re- 
specting the  jurisdiction  of  the  Consociation  of  Windham 
County,  or  respecting  their  Result  in  this  place  ;  subjects,, 
which  involve  not  only  the  ecclesiastical  rights  of  this  so- 
ciety, the  ministerial  character  and  standing  of  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Willson  in  this  church,  but  also  the  highest  interests 
of  Christianity  through  the  community. 

*'  The  Council  is,  however,  wiUing  to  express  an  opin- 
ion, as  desired,  on  the  expediency  of  a  dissolution  of  the 
pastoral  relation  between  the  Rev.  Mr.  Willson  and  the 
society. 

*'  In  consideration  of  the  very  peculiar  circumstances 
now  existing  among  this  Christian  people,  they  are  con- 
strained to  say,  that  they  think  his  dismission  adviseable. 
*'  As  the  parties  have  invested  this  Council  with  the 
necessary  power  in  this  case,  they  do  hereby  declare  the 
pastoral  relation  between  the  Rev.  Luther  Willson  and  the 
first  ecclesiastical  society  in  Brooklyn  dissolved. 
,  "  Should  implicit  submission  be  yielded  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  Consociation  by  churches  confessedly  consociated, 
yet  this  Council  without  reserve  give  it  as  their  settled 
opinion,  that  the  decision  of  Consociation  respecting  an 
article  of  faith,  which  has  been  a  subject  of  controversy  in 
every  age  of  the  Christian  church,  and  on  which  the  great- 
est and  best  men  have  been  divided,  does  not  affect  the 
clerical  character  of  a  preacher  of  the  gosj^el  among 
churches  and  societies  not  consociated* 

"  With  high  satisfaction  this  Comicil  notice^  that 
through  the  long  and  bitter  controversy  which  has  existed 
among  this  people^  the  moral  character  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Willson  remains  uninnpeached,  and  that  no  ministerial  de- 
ficiencies or  defects  have  been  alleged  against  him.  They 
cheerfully  declare,  that  the  review  of  the  measures  and 
conduct  of  Mr.  Willson,  through  the  various  scenes  of 
this  unhappy  controversy,  has  given  the  most  satisfactory- 
evidence  of  a  pacifick  and  charitable  temper,  and  of  those. 
P-iild  and  conciliatory  virtues  which  are  among  the  bright- 


123 

est  ornaments  of  the  Christian  character,  and  the  most  ef- 
Scacious  means  of  ministerial  usefulness. 

"  The  Council  appreciate  his  theological  attainmentSj 
and  ministerial  qualifications.  They  invite  him  to  Chris- 
tian and  ministerial  communion  in  their  own  churches, 
and  they  cordially  recommend  him  to  every  portion  of  the 
Christian  community,  where  the  great  Head  of  the  Church 
may  call  him.  They  devoutly  pray,  that  God  may  crown 
his  futUFe  days  with  peace,  add  lustre  to  his  future  exam- 
ple, success  to  his  future  labours,  length  to  his  life,  anda 
at  last,  to  his  fidelity  a  crown  of  glor}^ 

*'The  Council  tender  their  condolence  to  the  society 
under  their  heavy  afHictions.  The  society  well  know  the 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  laws  of  the  state.  They  can  duly 
estimate  the  worth  of  their  Christian  rights.  While  they 
are  disposed  vigorously  to  exert  themselves  to  maintain 
the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  them  free,  they  will 
endeavour  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace.  While  they  repel  every  attempt  from  others  to 
exercise  dominion  over  their  own  faith,  they  will  readily 
grant  to  all  the  liberty  they  claim,  and  steadily  pursue  the 
things  which  make  for  peacCj  and  things  whereby  one  may 
edify  another. 

"  The  Council  commend  you  to  God.  May  he  delight 
to  dwell  with  and  bless  you.  May  he  imbue  your  minds 
with  that  wisdom  which  is  from  above  ;  which  is  first 
pure;  then  peaceable;  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated; 
full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits ;  without  partiality  and  with- 
out  hypocrisy. 

"  Now  unto  Him  who  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling, 
and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the  presence  of  his  glo- 
ry with  exceeding  joy — to  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour, 
be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now  and 
forever.    Amen, 

JOSEPH  SUMNER, 
AARON  BANCROFT, 
HENRY  EDES, 
THOMAS  W.  WARD, 
WILLIAM  TROWBRIDGE, 
JOSEPH  CADY,  Jr. 
f  Brooklyn^  September  iSt/iy  1817." 
**  A  true  copy.        Attest, 

"AARON  BANCROFT,  Scribe^^ 


124 

As  soon  as  Mr.  Willson  was  dismissed  from  his  pasto- 
ral relation  to  the  society,  it  became  a  serious  question 
among  those  who  adhered  to  the  power  of  the  Consocia- 
tion, whether  he  was  a  member  of  the  church.  This  ques- 
tion had  employed  considerable  thought  and  conversation 
among  ministers  and  Chrihtians,  who  were  professedl}^  con- 
versant with  ecclesiastical  proceedings.  Mr.  W.  chiimed 
to  be  a  member  of  the  church  after  the  decision  of  the 
Consociation.  His  connexion  with  the  church  was,  how- 
ever, denied  by  leading  members  who  had  been  opposed 
to  his  ministry.  After  the  question  had  been  referred  to 
the  General  Association,  and  to  the  Consociation  of  Wind- 
ham County,  it  was  finally  settled  that  he  was  a  m.embcr. 
Consequently,  the  church,  at  a  meeting  in  October,  voted 
to  suspend  hiin  from  all  Christian  privileges,  until  he  should 
repent  of  the  heresy,  with  whicli  he  had  been  charged. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  congregational  church  in  Brook- 
lyn, Oct.  27th,  1817,  the  church  passed  the  following  votei 

'  Whereas  Mr.  Luther  Willson  has  been  found  guilty 
on  a  charge  of  heresy  by  the  Consociation  of  this  county, 
and  has  been  frequently  admonished  by  the  members  of 
this  church  for  that  crime  ;  also  by  the  Consociation  ia 
their  late  Result ;  therefore  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  church, 
that  he  ought  to  be,  and  is  hereby  suspended  from  the 
communion  of  this  church,  till  he  retracts  and  reforms.' 

*'  Cony  of  the  original  vote,  examined  by 

"  JOSIAH  WHITNEY,  Pastor:' 

The  church  had  now,  by  the  influence  of  the  Consocia- 
tion, and  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Whitney,  their  pastor,  entered 
into  the  views  of  the  aggrieved  brethren,  and  acted  with 
decision  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Willson.  This  first  act  of  the 
church,  that  was  of  a  definite  and  decided  character,  after 
they  had  adopted  the  new  system  which  had  been  prepared 
for  them,  is  precisely  what  was  to  have  been  expect- 
ed. As  to  the  circumstances  which  it  mentions  as  the 
ground  of  Mr.  W.'s  suspension,  it  is  characterised  with 
bubtilty  and  misrepresentation. 

This  vote  was  prepared  before  the  meeting,  and  was 
moved  by  one  who  had  been  a  leading  individual  among 
the  aggrieved  brethren  ;  and  it  was  no  doubt  intended  as  a 
record  to  inform  posterity,  that  the  church  in  Brooklyn 


125 

once  had  a  pastor  who  was  charged  ivith  lieresy^  and  that 
the  Consociation  found  him  guilty  of  the  crime  which  was 
alleged  against  him  ;  whereas  the  Consociation,  for  reasons 
that  are  not  known,  (as  the  subject  was  not  discussed  by 
them  in  pubHck,)  did  not  presume  to  declare  Mr.  W. 
guilty .  of  heresy.  There  is  apparently  a  remarkable  cau- 
tion m  the  Result,  not  to  declare  the  pastor  guilty  of  the 
"  crime  of  heresy,"  the  "  crime"  for  which  he  was  cited 
to  ansvvci. 

This  act  of  the  church  was  also  to  inform  the  publick, 
that  the  church  and  the  Consociation  had  been  faithful,  ac- 
cording to  their  Christian  obligations,  in  using  their  en- 
deavours to  convince  the  pastor  of  the  crime,  with*  which 
he  had  been  charged,  and  of  which,  previously  to  their  ad- 
monition, diey  had  judged  him  guilty. 

The  vote  declares,  that  "  the  members  of  the  church 
had  frequently  admonished  the  pastor  for  that  crime." 
The  phrase,  "  tlie  members  of  the  church,"  would  convey 
to  every  reader,  that  the  author  meant  by  it  the  members 
of  the  church  generally,  or  collectively.  In  direct  contra- 
diction, therefore,  to  what  I  consider  the  obvious  sense  of 
this  vote,  I  now  tuke  it  upon  me  to  state,  (what  I  have  de- 
clared in  substance  before,)  that,  of  about  thirty  brethren 
of  the  church,  not  so  many  as  four  ever  admonished  Mr. 
W.  for  the  crime  of  heresy,  (unless  publick  reproaches,  or 
observations  and  hints  that  are  incidental,  are  called  admo- 
nitions ;)  nor  so  many  as  six  ever  admonished  him  of  his 
errour  as  fundamental^  as  essential  to  salvation,  or  to  the 
Christian  character. 

As  to  the  admonition  of  the  Consociation,  mentioned  in 
the  vote,  I  will  refer  the  reader  to  the  Result,  which  con- 
tains the  only  admonition  administered  by  that  body. 

After  they  had  deposed  Mr.  W.  from  the  ministry,  re- 
jected him  from  their  fellowship,  and  dissolved  his  pastoral 
relation  to  the  church  in  Brooklyn,  they  are  complaisant 
enough  to  say — "  and  tenderly  admonishing  their  late  pas- 
tor to  return  to  the  Christian  faith  ;"  and,  as  a  farther  ex- 
pression of  their  tenderness,  and  to  give  efficacy  to  their 
reproof  by  a  direct  and  personal  application,  they  were  care- 
ful to  inform  the  pastor  and  the  publick,  (after  refusing  an  ex- 
planation of  a  misunderstanding  that  had  unfortunately  oc- 
curred,) that  the  pastor  v/as  so  deficient  in  moral  rectitude, 


126 

ifs  to  violate  an  agreement,  which,  on  their  part,  was  pacif- 
ick  and  liberal. 

To  close  my  observations  upon  the  vote  of  the  church, 
I  Will  state,  that  no  admonition  was  administered  to  Mr.  W. 
by  the  church,  or  any  of  its  members,  at  the  meeting  when 
lie  was  suspended  from  communion. 

I  have  now  finished  ray  Review  of  the  controversy  rela- 
tive to  Mr.  W.'s  ministrj^  and  his  connexion  with  the 
church.  I  feel  it  to  be  a  matter  of  regret,  that  I  cannot, 
consistently  with  the  limits  which  I  had  prescribed  to  my- 
self in  this  Review,  extend  the  history  of  the  church  in 
Brooklyn  to  a  later  period. 

I  shall  here  only  observe,  that  after  the  suspension  of  Mr. 
W.  from  CGmmunlon,  tlie  principal  authors  of  the  new 
system,  "  in  the  full  tide"  (as  they  apprehended)  "  of  suc- 
cessful experiment,"  entered  upon  a  course  of  discipline 
(or  of  wliat  some  would  call  persecution)  against  several 
inembers  of  the  church.  They  had  now  commenced  the 
work  of  reformation  upon  a  more  extensive  plan.  Three 
raembers  who  had  been  active  and  influential  in  support  of 
Mr.  W.'s  ministry,  and  especially  of  his  Christian  and 
ministerial  rights,  were  selected  as  victims  of  their  pious 
zeal,  to  be  sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  truth  and  love. 
The  business  of  reformation,  having  all  the  interest  of  nov- 
elty, went  on  rapidly  for  a  time.  The  principal  actors  m 
this  scene,  who  were  naturally  of  a  warm  temperament,  and 
were  distinguished  for  their  resolution  and  perseverance, 
appeared  strong  in  the  faith,  and  full  of  expectation.  But 
unfortunately,  in  their  progress,  they  discovered  many  and 
increasing  difiiculties,  which  they  had  not  foreseen.  They 
saw,  when  it  was  too  late,  that,  in  their  first  movements, 
there  was  a  capital  defect.  They  soon  learnt  by  experi- 
ence, that  what  they  had  recently  gained  in  zeal,  they  had 
lost  in  prudence  and  management.  Obliged  to  contend 
with  the  current  of  publick  opinion,  and  with  obstacles 
tliat  were  numerous  and  unexpected,  they  considered  their 
course  too  critical  and  adventurous  to  be  pursued.  Their 
neal  abated  ;  their  operations  were  suspended ;  and  the  ob- 
ject of  reformation,  by  direct  and  decisive  measures,  was 
relinquished,  at  least  for  a  time.  How  soon  the  work  of 
discipline  will  be  revived,  (an  employment  in  which  they 
engaged  with  much  apparent  satisfaction,)  it  is  di^cult  to 


127 

conjecture.  I  am  however  satisfied,  that  they  who  en- 
gaged in  it  before,  will  not  enter  upon  it  ag;ain,  until  thejr 
are  prepared  to  act  more  deliberately,  and  are  favoured 
with  a  fair  prospect  of  success. 

The  church  in  Brooklyn  in  its  present  situation,  instead 
of  resembling  *•  a  city  set  on  an  hill,  and  giving  light  to 
the  world,"  has  more  the  resemblance  of  "  a  city  that  is 
broken  down  and  without  walls." 

In  consequence  of  the  pretensions  of  some  of  its  mem- 
bers to  pre-eminent  purity  and  soundness  in  the  faith,  of 
private  animosities,  and  of  disaftection  and  hatred,  occasion- 
ed by  a  self-confident  and  schismatick  spirit,  there  has  been 
no  observance  of  a  sacramental  communion  for  more  than 
a  year.  And  how  is  it  to  be  expected,  that  asperities  will 
be  softened,  animosities  extinguished,  and  Christian  hu- 
mility and  truth  prevail,  until  the  members  in  general,  by 
an  example  of  forbearance  and  condescension,  practically 
allow  to  each  other,  in  their  difference  of  opinion,  the  ex- 
ercise and  enjoyment  of  equal  rights  ;  and,  in  the  faithful 
observance  of  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  cultivate  a  meek 
and  benevolent  spirit. 

I  think  it  proper  to  remark,  that  while  the  church 
has  been  thrown  into  confusion  by  its  divisions,  and  the 
charity  and  communion  of  its  members  have  been  seriously 
interrupted  by  a  difference  of  opinion  that  is  inevitable  a^ 
mong  Christians  in  this  state  of  imperfection,  the  society 
have  as  yet  maintained  those  principles  of  religious  liberty, 
which  are  essential  to  the  permanent  existence  and  general 
welfare  of  every  community.  And  I  hope  they  will  con- 
tinue to  realize,  that  the  rights  secured  to  a  Christian  soci- 
ety by  these  principles,  are  too  valuable  to  be  given  away 
at  the  exorbitant  claims  of  ecclesiastical  interference — to» 
sacred  to  be  regarded  with  indifference.  I  trust  they  will 
never  think  so  lightly  of  their  Christian  rights,  as  to  acqui- 
esce in  a  system  of  intolerance  and  restrictive  communion. 

Let  every  citizen,  and  every  Christian,  duly  estimate  the 
worth  of  a  good  conscience,  and  the  importance  of  a  cor- 
rect knowledge  of  Christian  doctrines  and  precepts,  as  one 
who  must  give  an  account  to  his  Lord.  But  let  him  nev- 
er resign  his  understanding,  which  was  given  him  by  the 
inspiration  of  the  Almighty,  to  the  fallible  guidance  and 
authority  of  men.  And  let  opiaions  be  estimated,  more  par- 


120 

ticularly,  by  their  habitual  and  practical  influence  in  form* 
ing  the  moral  character,  and  in  contributing  to  the  happi- 
ness of  societv. 

Religion,  as  to  its  motives  and  obligations,  its  spirit,  ten- 
dency, and  ultimate  effects,  is  not  to  be  regarded  with  in- 
difference and  insensibility.  Any  subject  that  is  worthy 
of  inquiry  and  investigation,  and,  especially,  that  involves 
in  it  important  consequences,  cither  immediate  or  remote, 
demands  attention,  and  may  well  excite  a  degree  of  solici- 
tude and  zeal.  And  I  trust  it  will  be  universally  agreed, 
that  religion,  as  to  the  objects  it  contemplates,  the  duties 
it  enjoins,  and  the  ends  it  pursues,  is  a  subject  of  this  kind. 
But  we  must  not  be  unmindful,  that  religious  zeal  should 
always  be  accompanied  ^vith  knowledge,  and  with  true 
and  practical  humility.  Otherwise  it  will  grow  into  enthu- 
siasm, and  we  shall  have  more  occasion  to  deplore  its  des- 
olations, than  to  admire  its  wisdom,  or  to  rejoice  in  its 
amiable  and  happy  effects. 

There  are  two  extremes,  to  which  Christians  in  different 
circumstances,  and  of  different  sensibility,  imagination,  and 
habits  of  thinkins:,  are  ant  to  incline.  In  the  one  case,  we 
discover  too  great  an  adherence  to  certain  mysterious  and 
inexplicable  doctrines  ;  and  in  the  other,  too  much  inclina- 
tion to  determine  the  credibility  of  the  doctrines  of  revela- 
tion by  what  is  frequently  called  the  test  of  reason  and  phi- 
losophy. In  the  first  instance,  faith,  valuing  itself  too 
much  for  its  superior  discoveries  and  attainments,  and  thus 
degenerating  into  obstinacy  and  superstition,  loses  almost 
the  whole  of  that  practical  character,  which  is  humble,  a- 
miable,  and  attractive.  Reason,  on  the  contrary,  averse  in 
its  general  principles  to  any  thing  like  mystery,  making 
too'  little  use  of  the  affections  in  religion,  and  reducing 
almost  every  thing  to  the  cold  calculations  of  abstract  and 
philosophical  principles — exhibits  nothing  to  the  observer 
but  the  unanimated  features  of  a  lifeless  form. 

But,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  there  is  a  happy  temperature 
in  religion,  which  neither  oppresses  by  its  intolerance,  con- 
sumes with  its  zeal,  nor  congeals  with  its  frigid  calcula- 
tions. It  rather  inspires  and  enlivens,  until  it  diffuses 
through  the  soul  a  genial  warmth,  and  exhibits,  in  the  con- 
versation and  life,  that  powerful  and  attractive  simplicity, 
which  cannot  fail  to  engage  the  affections,  and  command 


129 

respect.  Let  it  therefore  be  the  care  of  every  Christian^ 
every  church,  and  every  society,  to  preserve  the  happy 
medium  between  the  extremes.  Amidst  all  their  specu- 
lations, and  differences  of  opinion,  let  them  (if  they  please) 
use  their  endeavours  to  convince  a!>.d  persuade.  At  the 
same  time,  conscious  of  the  imperfections  of  the  human 
mind,  the  deceitfulness  of  the  heart,  and  of  the  frailty  of 
human  nature,  let  them  endeavour  to  possess  "the  unity 
©f  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace." 

Let  all  remember,  that  " now  we  see  throueii  a  e'lass 
darkly" — "now  we  know  m  part'' — "And  now  abideth 
faith,  hope,  charity,  these  three ;  but  the  greatest  of  these 
is  charity." 


im 


ARTICLES, 

j'^or  the  Administration  of  Church  Discifiline,  unanimatiaty  tgreed  vfi» 
on,  and  consented  to,  by  the  Elders  and  all  the  Churches  in  the  Colom 
ny  of  Connecticut ,  in  J^etv- England,  convened  by  Delegation  in  a 
General  Council,  at  Saybrook,  Sefitember  9,  170ft. 

T.  THAT  the  elder  or  elders  of  a  particular  church,  with  the  consent 
of  the  brethren  of  the  same,  have  power  and  ought  to  exercise  church<lisci. 
pline  according  to  the  rule  of  God's  word,  in  relation  to  all  scandals  that  fall 
out  within  the  same.  And  it  may  be  meet  in  all  cases  of  difficulty,  for  the 
respective  pastors  of  particular  churches,  to  take  advice  of  the  Elders  of  the 
churches  in  the  neiRhbourhood,  before  they  proceed  to  censure  in  such 
/cases.,  Matth.  xviii.  IT^  Heb.  xiii.  IT;  1  Cor.  v.  4,  5,  12 ;  2Cor.  u.6| 
Prov.  xi.  14;  Acts  xv.  12; 

II.  That  the  churches  which  are  neighbouring  each  to  other,  shall  con- 
sociate  for  mutual  affording  to  each  other  such  assistance  as  may  be  requi- 
site, upon  all  occasions  ecclesiastical.  And  that  the  particular  pastors  and 
churches,  within  the  respective  counties  m  this  government,  shall  be  one 
Consociation  (ormore,  if  they  shall  judge  meet)  forthecnd  aforesaid-  Psal. 
cxxii.  3,  4,  5,  and  cxxxiii.  1^  Ecd.  iv.  9  to  1»;  Acts  xv.  2,  8,  22,  23;  I 
Tim.  iv.  14;  1  Cor.  xvi.  1. 

TIT.  That  all  cases  of  scandal  that  fall  out  within  the  circuit  of  any  oi 
the  aforesaid  Consociations,  shall  be  brouglit  to  a  Council  of  the  elders,  and  al- 
so messengers  of  the  churches  within  the  said  circuit,  i.  e.  the  churches  of  one 
Consociation,  if  they  see  cause  to  send  messengers,  when  there  shall  be  need 
of  a  Council  for  the  determination  of  them.  S  John  9,  10  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  1  j 
Gal.  vi.  1,  2;  2  Cor.  xiii.  2  ;   Acts  xv.  22;  2  Cor.  viii  23. 

IV.  That  according  to  the  common  practice  of  our  churches,  nothing  f  hall 
be  deemed  an  act  or  judgment  of  any  Council,  which  hath  not  the  major 
part  of  the  elders  present  concurring,  and  such  a  number  of  the  messen- 
gers present  as  makej*  he  majority  of  the  Council:  Provided,  that  if  any  such 
cinircli  shall  not  see  cause  to  send  any  messengers  to  the  Council,  or  the  per- 
sons cliosen  by  them  shall  not  attend,  neither  of  these  shall  be  any  ebstruc- 
Jion  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Council,  or  invalidate  any  of  their  acts.  Acts 
XV.  23  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  S2,  33. 

V.  That  when  any  case  is  orderly  brought  before  any  Council  of  the 
churches,  it  shall  there  be  heard  and  determined,  which  (unless  orderly  re- 
moved from  thence)  shall  be  a  final  issue  ;  and  all  parties  therem  concerned 
shall  sit  down  and  be  determined  thereby.  And  the  Councd  so  heanng  and 
giving  the  result  or  final  issue  in  the  said  case  as  aforesaid,  shall  see  their 
determination  or  judgment  duly  executed  and  attended,  in  such  way  or 
manner  as  shall  in  their  judgment  be  most  suitable  and  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  God.  Acts  xv.;  1  Cor.  v.  5  ;  £Cor.  ii.  6,  11,  and  xm.  2;  Phil, 
iii.  15  ;   Rom.  xiv.  2,  o. 

VI.  That,  if  any  pastor  and  church  doth  obstinately  rcfus«  a  due  attend* 
0nce  and  conformity  to  the  determination  of  the  Council  that  hath  the  cog- 
nizance of  the  case,  and  determineth  it  as  above,  after  due  patience  used, 
they  sh.all  be  reputed  guilty  of  scandalous  contempt,  and  dealt  with  as  the 
rule  of  God's  word  in  such  case  doth  provide;  and  the  sentence  of  non-com- 
munion shall  be  declared  against  such  pastor  and  church.  And  the  church- 
es arc  to  approve  of  the  said  sentence,  by  withdrawing  from  the  communion 
of  tlie  pastor  and  church  which  so  refuseth  to  be  healed.  Rom.  xvi.  17  : 
Mat.  Kvijj.  15,  16^  17,  by  proportion.    Gal.  ii.  11  to  U:  2Thess.  ui.  b,  l*. 


131 

Vlf .  That  in  case  any  difficulties  shall  arise  in  any  of  the  churches  in  ^« 
jsolony,  which  cannot  be  issued  without  considerable  disquiet,  that  churcU 
in  which  they  arise  (or  that  minister  or  member  aggrieved  by  them)  shall 
-apply  themselves  to  the  Council  of  the  consociated  churches  of  the  circuit 
to  which  the  said  church  belongs,  who,  if  they  see  cause,  shall  thereupoa 
convene,  hear  and  determine  such  cases  of  dithcuhy ;  unless  the  matter 
brouj^ht  before  them  shall  be  judged  so  great  in  the  nature  of  it,  or  so  doubti 
ful  in  the  issue,  or  ot  such  general  concern,  that  the  said  Council  shall  judge 
•best  that  it  be  referred  to  a  fuller  Council,  consisting  of  the  churches  of  the 
other  Consociation  within  the  same  county,  (or  of  the  next  adjoining  Con- 
sociation of  another  county,  if  there  be  not  two  Consociations  in  the  county 
where  the  difficulty  ariseth)  who,  together  with  themselves,  shall  hear, 
judge,  uctermine,  and  finally  issue  such  case  according  to  the  word  of  God*' 
JProv.  xi.  14;  1  Cor.  xiv.  S^J,  and  xiv.  24,  by  proportion. 

VIII.  That  a  particular  church,  in  which  any  difficulty  doth  arise,  may, 
if  they  see  cause,  call  a  Council  of  the  consociated  churches  of  the  circuit  t© 
which  rhe  sai  1  church  belongs,  before  they  proceed  to  sentence  therein  ; 
but  there  is  iK)t  the  same  hberty  to  an  oftending  brother  to  call  the  said 
Council;  before  the  church  to  which  he  belongs  proceed  to  excommunica- 
tion in  t':\e  said  case,  unless  with  the  consent  of  the  church.  Acts  xv.  2; 
Matth.  xviii.  15,  16,  17. 

IX.  That  all  the  churches  of  the  respective  Consociations  shall  choose, 
if  they  see  cause,  one  or  two  menibers  of  each  church,  to  represent  them  in 
the  Counciis  of  the  said  'hurches,  as  occasion  may  call  for  them,  who  shall 
stand  in  that  capacity,  till  new  be  chosen  for  the  same  service,  unless  any 
chiirch  shall  mcline  to  choose  their  messengers  anew,  upon  the  convening  of 
such  Councils.     Acts  xv.  %,  I ,  ^  Cor.  viii.  24. 

X.  That  the  minister  or  ministers  of  the  county  towns,  and,  where  there 
are  no  ministers  in  such  tosvns,  the  two  next  ministers  to  the  said  town, 
shall,  as  soon  as  conveniently  may  be,  appoint  a  time  and  place  for  the  meet- 
ing of  the  elders  and  messengers  of  the  churches  in  the  said  county,  in  or- 
der to  their  forming  themselves  into  one  or  more  Consociations,  and  notitV 
the  said  time  and  place  to  the  elders  and  churches  of  that  county,  who  shau 
attend  at  the  same,  the  elders  in  their  own  persons,  and  the  churches  by 
their  messengers,  if  they  see  cause  to  send  them.  Which  elders  and  mes- 
sengers so  assembled  in  council,  as  also  any  other  Council  hereby  allowed 
of,  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  themselves  as  need  shall  be.  for  the  space  of 
one  year,  affer  the  beginning  or  first  session  of  the  said  Council,  and  no 
longer  And  that  minister  ivho  was  chosen  at  the  last  session  of  any  Coun- 
cil to  be  moderator,  shall,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  two  more  elders, 
(or,  in  case  of  the  moderator's  death,  any  two  elders  of  the  same  Consocia- 
tion,) call  another  Council  within  the  circuit,  when  they  shall  judge  there 
is  need  thereof  And  all  Councils  may  prescribe  rules  as  occasion  may  re- 
quire, and  whatsoever  th.ey  shall  judge  needful  within  their  circuit,  for  the 
well  performing,  and  orderly  managing  their  several  acts,  to  be  attended  by 
them,  or  matters  that  come  under  their  cognizance.  Phil.  iv.  8 ;  1  Cor. 
xiv.  40;  Phil.  iii.  15,  16  5  Rom.  xiv.  2,  3. 

XI.  That  if  any  person  or  persons,  orderly  complained  of  to  a  Council, 
or  that  are  witnesses  to  such  complaints,  (having  regular  notification  to  ap- 
pear,) shall  refuse  or  neglect  so  to  do,  in  the  place  and  at  the  time  specified 
m  the  warning  given,  except  they  or  he  give  some  satisfying  reason  thereof 
to  the  said  Council,  they  shall  be  judged  guilty  of  scandalous  contempt. 
Col.  ii.  5,  Heb   xiii.  17;  1  Thes5.  v.  14. 

XII.  That  the  teaching  elders  of  each  county  shall  be  one  association, 
(or  more,  if  they  see  cause,)  which  association  or  associations  shall  assem- 
ble twice  a  year  at  least,  at  such  time  and  place  as  they  shall  appoint,  tp 
consult  the  duties  of  their  office,  and  the  common  interest  of  the  churches, 
who  shall  consider  and  resolve  questions  and  cases  of  importance  whicU 
shall  be  offered  by  any  among  themselves,  or  others ;  who  also  shall  have 
power  0/ exanynin^  aiid. recommending  the  candidjte?  of  the  ministry  to  tk^ 


132 

work  thereof.  Psal.  cxxxiii.  1 ;  Acts  xx.  17,  n  to  32 ;  Mai.  ii.  7;  Mattk. 
V.  U;  Deut.  xvii  8.  9,  10;  lUim.  v.  22;  2  lim.  ii.  15  ;  1  Tim.  iii.  6, 
10;  Koin.  x.  J5  ;  1  'J  im.  iv.  14. 

XIII.  That  the  said  ascociated  pastors  fhall  take  notice  of  any  among 
♦hemselv^cs  that  may  be  accused  of  scandal,  or  heresy,  unto  or  cognizable 
by  them  ■  exar.iinc  the  matter  carefully- ;  and  if  they  find  just  occasion,  shall 
direct  to  the  calling  of  the  Council,  v\  lierc  such  ottenders  shall  be  duly  pro- 
ceeded against.  Lev  .-■-ix.  17;  1  Cor.  v.  6  ;  Tit.  iii.  10,  11  ;  Isa.  lii.  11; 
Mai.  iii.  iJ:  Tit.  i.  6  to  9;  Dent.  xiii.  14  j  SJohn9,  10;  Rev.  li.  14,  15 ; 
ITim.  J.  20,  andiv.  14. 

XIV.  That  the  said  associated  palters  shall  also  be  consulted  by  bereav- 
ed churches  belonging  to  their  association,  and  recommend  to  such  churches 
such  persons  as  may  be  fit  to  be  called  and  settled  ir,  the  v,ork  of  the  gospel 
ministry  am.ong  them.  And  if  sucii  bereaved  churches  shall  not  seasonably 
call  and  settle  a  minister  among  them,  the  said  associated  pastors  sliall  lay 
the  state  of  such  bereaved  clivuches  before  the  General  Assembly  of  this 
colony,  that  they  niay  take  such  order  concerning  them  as  shall  be  found 
iiecessciry  for  their  peace  and  edification.  2  Cor.  xi.  38  ;  Phil.  ii.  19,  20, 21 ; 
STim.  ii.  15;  Tit.  i  6  to  10;  Isa.  xlix.  23. 

XV.  That  it  be  recommended  as  expedient,  that  all  the  associations  of 
this  colony  do  meet  in  a  general  association  by  their  respective  delegates, 
one  or  more  out  of  each  association,  once  a  year  :  the  first  meeting  to  be  at 
Hartford,  at  the  time  of  the  general  election  next  ensuing  the  date  hereof; 
and  so  annually  in  all  the  counties  successively,  at  such  time  and  place  as 
they,  the  said  delegates,  shall  in  their  annual  meetings  appoint.    Heb.  xiii.  1. 


Pnncf,D„    Tl,™io„t,,|    Sfmi„,„v.if ,    L,t.,,„y 


1    1012  01029  2599 


